It’s not what you think, baby.

In a numbers-heavy blog post, Bertrand Loretz tries to make the argument that “Banshee is a GNOME Project”  and not a ”Novell project”. While I understand why one might want to distance themselves from Novell, you’re going to have a rough time trying that with Banshee.

For starters Novell owns the Banshee name, logo and icon. One might think that pretty much seals the deal?

Another point of interest is that “one of the purposes building Banshee was to showcase building an application on Mono.”

There’s also this bit right there on the Banshee “About” Page:

Novell employs Aaron and Gabriel Burt to work on Banshee.

So, just going by Mr. Loretz’s own numbers, at least 70.4% of the code contributions came from the 2 developers Novell is paying to work on Banshee.

So, Novell owns the project name and likeness, and pays for the overwhelming majority of the actual code, but it’s not a “Novell project”?

I guess this is similar logic to how the CodePlex Foundation is not a Microsoft organization?

Here’s your fries, sir. By the way, I really like to think of myself as an actor.

As far as Banshee being a “GNOME project” – Mr. Loretz’s other prong of argument - Banshee is not on the list of GNOME projects, although I’m sure Team Mono is doing everything they can to get that damned Rhythmbox off the list and replace it with Banshee.

Two for one special

There’s another nice bit of irony I ran across while visiting the Banshee page. They link to the FSF’s essay, “The Free Software Definition“. I find this ironic because Team Mono has nearly surpassed Microsoft as the most vocal and vicious source of criticism against the FSF and “Free Software”.

Predictions

Behold my crystal ball: there will be an upsurge in talk of Banshee as a “GNOME project”, “part of GNOME” and so forth. Team Mono has expressed that GNOME should be built on Mono numerous times, and they will continue to push that effort from every angle. Banshee is just another vector – not only serving as displacing a non-Mono part of GNOME (rhythmbox), but also rolling Moonlight into GNOME.

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.

In Which Your Noble Hero Braves Market-Speak to Deliver a Story

The webcast, “Making IT Work in the Real World” runs about an hour, and a pretty bland hour at that. I confess I skipped through quite a bit of the droning – I’m not really as brave as the little headlines make out sometimes.

There are a few slides that were of interest, because I think they show a darker side of the Novell-Microsoft collaboration. Keep in mind this was a pure PR fluff piece, so Novell and Microsoft had plenty of time to prepare and the hosts were not there to play any sort of investigative role. It was pretty much open mic night for your favorite corporate spokesmen.

Let’s see what they had to say!

In Which a Bit of That Good Old-Fashioned FUD is Spread around

Here’s a slide where the gentleman from Novell talked up the 3 pillars of value that the Novell-Microsoft collaboration delivers:

"Intellectual Property"

There’s that good old “peace of mind” codeword that Microsoft and Novell love so much to throw around. How does one reconcile Novell’s statement that the ”agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property” with the constant marketing that only Novell can offer “IP peace of mind” and the bullet point that “Microsoft and Novell” provide “patent coverage”?

A little fancy dancing, perhaps?

See this fellow here? He’s my bestest friend

Here’s a slide where Novell plays up the exclusivity of their collaboration with Microsoft:

"Only" Novell can offer you this?

In the blue box we are told that “SLES” is the only Linux distribution officially supported by MSFT on Hyper-V. This is strange, because both Microsoft and Red Hat, when talking about Red Hat on Hyper-V say:

Q5: How do customers get support for the validated solutions?  Who do they call?

A5: Customers with valid support agreements with both companies call either Microsoft or Red Hat to have their issues resolved. If the first vendor contacted cannot resolve the issue they will work with the other vendor to come to a resolution for the mutual customer.

I mean it sure looks to me like that is Microsoft officially supporting Red Hat. I know I’m not a captain of the industry, but I am lettered and can even sign my name if someone tells me where to make the mark.

I like the wording of the green box, because I suspect it might be technically true at this exact moment in time, but we do know (again from Microsoft) that “the folks at Red Hat tell me that they’ll provide WHQL [Windows Hardware Quality Labs] drivers for a variety of Windows Server versions. So not only will you get cooperative technical support, you’ll also get high-performing enlightened VMs.”

And, come to think of it, wasn’t that the whole purpose of the drivers Microsoft just released, to provide enlightened support at the kernel level?

So yeah basically this entire slide is, to put it politely, inaccurate. At best it is half inaccurate-now and half soon-to-be-inaccurate.

Hit ‘em with the stinger!

Finally, one last slide that I thought was funny:

You're calling *this* a feature?

OK, so we already have shown that SUSE Linux is not the only Linux distribution supported by Microsoft. I don’t want to touch endorsed, too vague and I’m not sure that’s really something to lay claim to, anyway!

I also found it funny that Novell asserts Linux is “FOS”. What’s that all about? Is it to distance Novell from “FLOSS”, or is “FOS” some common acronym that I just haven’t ran across? I was pretty sure I’ve read the whole internets, but I guess I could have missed a page or two.

This was cross-posted to The-Source.com.

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.

On what is I assume his official Novell blog, John Dragoon, the Chief Marketing Officer for Novell makes an illuminating comparison in the consideration of Microsoft’s recent virtualization submission:

Of course this announcement is about much more than 20,000 lines of code Microsoft is committing (which by the way once accepted into the Linux tree will far surpass those contributed by Canonical).

Stay classy, Provo.

He follows up with this:

To misquote Neil Armstrong from 40 years ago, “this is one small step for Microsoft, but one vast leap for open source.”

Uh, that is just about 100% ass-backwards, isn’t it? It is a vast leap for Microsoft; they are the ones who, having spent years demonizing and attacking Open Source, are now finding themselves in the awkward position of having to support it because of customer demand. It is a small step for Open Source, because this represents 3(?) new drivers, that’s like infinitesimal percentage of all Linux drivers, right?

I encourage everyone to read the entire blog entry and the earlier one I already talked about. Very defensive for PR / Official Statments I think. Guilty conscience?

Novell has steady been attacking Red Hat, and now it seems Canonical is under fire as well. That’s corporate business for you, sure. It is just a shame it has to taint the Free and Open Source community. Wouldn’t be pragmatic to speak well of the competition, though. Only a hippie idealist would cooperate instead of denigrate.

There is a cost to the contributions that corporations make to the community.

[Update: Mr. Dragoon comments.]

The code covers drivers for virtualizing Linux on Windows. It’s all thanks to Novell, with a strangely bitter PR release, check out the last bit:

Today’s announcement is further vindication of our partnership and is great news for Linux, open source and especially for customers.

At least Novell acknowledges the partnership needs “vindication”.  I wouldn’t have put it like that if I were the PR man on point for this, myself. Yes, dude, everyone hates your company. You might as well change your name to Judas Microsystems, but no need to point that out in your own press releases!

Don’t get all excited up in here, though. This isn’t anything at all more “Open” or “Free” about Microsoft.

Why they did it

Novell and Microsoft have long stated that virtualization is one of the goals they are working together on. Microsoft wants you to use Windows; but, if you must use Linux, at least run it on top of Windows. So, they are releasing this code to help make that happen.

Customers have told us that they would like to standardize on one virtualization platform, and the Linux device drivers will help customers who are running Linux to consolidate their Linux and Windows servers on a single virtualization platform.

Nothing altruistic here – if one must use Linux (or Open Source in general), Microsoft certainly wants it running on Windows. Of course, you can’t have a truly Free system running on top of Windows; but in general corporations are not interested in Freedom (until they are stormed by the BSA), so they aren’t looking at things that way.

Why they used the GPL

Because they had no option. If they hope to get it close to the kernel, it must be GPL. It’s not like Microsoft chose the GPL, there was no choice about it at all.

Compare and Contrast

As a humorous exercise, actually read the Microsoft press release and compare with say the reaction on Groklaw.

Microsoft:

The OSTC has a deep technical expertise in Linux, UNIX and open source technologies, along with strong social connections into open source communities.

First Groklaw comment:

Rules to live by:
Rule #1: Don’t deal with Microsoft
Rule #2: See Rule #1

Microsoft has “strong social connections” alright, so long as you consider large cash payments “strong social connections”. I suppose disgust and distrust are “strong social connections” as well, when you get right down to it.

Anyway, not really much to see here: Microsoft contributes some code to Linux to help Windows in the server market, where it is not doing near as well as it is on the desktop. Nothing shocking. The value will come at watching the spin fly: those who portray this as some sort of victory for Linux, or express wide-eyed surprise, or point to it as some proof of a new direction for Microsoft reveal ignorance or dishonesty. There’s some value in knowing who not to trust, I suppose.

Here’s where I attempt to answer that question!
The easy part

It’s always more effective to knock out the easy stuff first. So let’s establish that the premise is at least reasonable. Here are some facts. Facts are a nice way to start:

1. Mono is a Novell project.
2. Novell is on the GNOME Foundation’s Advisory Board.
3. Mono is lead at Novell by the founder of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza.
4. Mr. de Icaza has said in the past, “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET“
5. Mr. de Icaza claims to be “in charge of Novell’s Linux Desktop Strategy” along with Nat Friedman.

These are facts:  immutable, inarguable, and tasty with honey mustard. Almost as tasty are these chips of paranoid ravings we’ve fried up in the mono-nono.com kitchen:

1. Companies generally promote their products.
2. Mr. de Icaza is quite enthusiastic about Mono.
3. Mr. de Icaza knows his way around the Mono and GNOME projects.
4. The more GNOME adopts Mono, the greater the “success” of the Mono project (by its own lights)
5. People in charge of projects generally want them to be successful.

Now I know those may seem absolutely crazy, but perhaps you’ll indulge us?

Now, it is true that none of this is proof Novell is specifically promoting Mono in GNOME. But, I hope we can at least agree that it is reasonable to suggest that Novell is promoting the adoption of Mono in GNOME.

Let me further stress that I don’t think there is anything surprising about this claim – I was actually quite surprised that it was questioned! I do not think that Novell thinks there is anything wrong with promoting Mono – quite the contrary, I suspect many people think they are doing good by promoting Mono.

The difficult part

So, there you have it. I have proved my case! You can stop reading now.

Alright, I see you are distrustful of your Humble Host, and my rhetoric fails to convince? Allow me then, to submit evidence! (Picture a dapper bespoke-suited gentlemanly lawyer waving a manilla envelope to help set the tone.)

Actually, I don’t think this will be too hard, because I don’t think Novell or Team Mono think there is anything wrong with promoting Mono in GNOME. (or KDE or XFCE or TWM or MS-DOS or USPS).

GNOME Desktop Development

One good place to look might be the GNOME Desktop Development mailing list. Can we find anyone from Novell promoting Mono there? Like Obama said: “Yes we can”.

Here is a gentleman from Novell formally proposing GTK# for inclusion.

Here is a gentleman from Novell announcing his new position as maintainer of Evolution, and listing mono as 2 of the 5 things the core team will focus on.

Here is a gentleman trying to get his technology in, noting that it supports Mono, which “is magic buzzword for some (especially at Novell)” I think posts like this are informative because they show the group recognizes and accepts (to some degree) what is going on.

Here is a gentleman from Novell arguing that integration with mono apps is necessary for a “cohesive” GNOME experience.

And of course, with few exceptions, any post to the list by Mr. de Icaza is either defending or promoting Mono.  But here is an especially interesting one:

[A RedHat dude]
> So I think we should go farther than “GNOME does not support using the
> extended .NET APIs” and say “we will oppose implementing those APIs on
> Linux at all” – unless Microsoft releases the patents, it’s impossible
> for those APIs to contribute to the success of Linux, all they can do is
> encourage people to get locked in to Microsoft from a legal point of
> view. And Microsoft has said they will _not_ release these APIs.

[Miguel]
We can certainly promote the use of ECMA only, we will take the first
steps on our next release, splitting the rpms.

Splitting the source will take me a few more weeks, to do all the cvs
surgery and build system.

But the non-ECMA parts have already been written, so its too late to
avoid implementing them

Hmm.  Now this was back in 2004. I surely don’t recall Team Mono ever promoting ECMA-only use - in fact, I dare say the ECMA/non-ECMA distinction within Mono was usually glossed over -  and we are now being told that Mono will be split more formally into ECMA and non-ECMA portions. Well, I’m sure we will get things right this time around.

GNOME Foundation

Here is a gentleman suggesting that “Novell has also been very sensitive to the Mono issue in the past.  They still champion it but have done things like create C glue libraries and refrain from making their apps like Evolution depend
on Mono.”

Much like the “magic buzzword” post earlier, we see that there is an in-group understanding that Novell is promoting Mono. This quote shows the Novell is aware of the sensitivity of the issue.

Some random ones

Here is a gentleman from Novell expounding the virtues of Beagle over Tracker.

There you have it

I think those posts are sufficient to show that Novell is promoting Mono in GNOME. There are many more similar ones in various GNOME mailing lists, but even I have limits of time and patience searching things out.

Again, I’m not saying this is surprising or malicious, it’s just clear from reason and evidence. But it was surprising to me that someone actually questioned this, so I thought it might be worthwhile to try to answer a question.

The alternative of course, is that Novell is not promoting Mono in GNOME, which would be a very foolish thing to do if you were Novell. Novell’s entire future is pinned upon the good graces of Microsoft, so you can bet they will be keeping Redmond happy spreading that old fashioned Mono love.

Additional questions

There were a couple of additional questions that Mr. Rogers brought up:

“Is the fact that Novell employees are writing software that is good enough to displace the current GNOME software for inclusion, or fills some lack in GNOME evidence for this premise? ”

This is not so interesting. First of it pre-supposes the quality of the software. Secondly, either Novell is promoting Mono or it isn’t. I’m not at this juncture asserting the morality or ethics of the promotion, just that it exists.

“How would you distinguish this from individual Novell employees determining that C# is the most appropriate language for a new project?”

In one way this is an interesting question: do we think individual employees are free to choose languages? Possibly, that is probably complex, depending on the project and needs of the company and so forth.

It raises the side questions of how much internal pressure there is in Novell to get on board the Mono train, and what would happen if someone decided to implement stuff not in C#. I can’t speak to that, as I am not privvy to the internal politics of Novell – nor do I care to be. From outside, it seems clear to me that Novell has an enourmous investment in Mono, and those dudes are quite enthusiatic about using Mono. I image if you strolled into Cubicle 12 and suggested your new killer Novell app be written in C++/QT, it would be an interesting reaction.

I like to picture it something like this

New Guy: “Man, I can’t wait to get started on this killer BaconMeter app. A little C++ and QT and I can have a prototype within the week”.

Silence falls in the cubicle farm. Several smiling people slide out of the closer cubicles, move to encircle New Guy and begin speaking in soft measured tones.

“No dude. Mono is awesome rocks brilliant” Everyone in the room nods in unison.

“Yes, he’s right – look at this framework.” A hand on the shoulder now, comforting, as he gestures to a large poster on the wall. ”Isn’t it magnificant lovely elegant?”

A third man holds out a color diagram: “Just take a look at the stack. It’s clean simple complete”. A bead of sweat rolls off his forehead and drops onto the paper, smearing the fresh ink. The man dies a small death inside and backs away shamefully as another near-identical man moves in to take his place. No one has blinked yet.

New Guy is now uncertain: “I don’t know, fellas, I’m really more of a C++ guy and the QT toolkit is pretty sweet. Plus, performance is going to be an issue with all this tasty bacon.”

There is a sharp intake of breath from everyone in the room. Several of the sitting men stand up, visibly shocked. In a corner cubicle there is the sound of weeping.

The hand on the shoulder tightens, as the grin widens. “Oh no, friend. We have GTK sharp. That is what we use.”  The voice is strained, and it seems as if the man might stutter, were it not for force of will. “That is the proper, the best choice. I’m sure you agree.”

Everyone is nodding madly now, murmuring agreement. Outside, a bird sings in the distance.

New Guy shuffles uncomfortably. “I..I guess so. I mean I used Java on a project once, Mono is like that right?”

The two men in front of New Guy exchange glances. The men standing in their cubicles look around, as if to check if they are being observed. One man begins scratching his neck viciously, another stares out the window head down and bites the back of his hand. The weeping grows louder in the corner, but no one ever looks in that direction.

The hand comes off the shoulder and waves in the air awkwardly, like a flying fish suspended between the two men. He gestures as he speaks, but it seems uncoordinated with the words. “Oh no, friend. Mono is state-of-the-art improved hotness number one. It is the way. Do you see? We have so many features. Do you see? This is not Java. Do you see?” He is shaking New Guy, but doesn’t seem aware of it.

The other men look between each other, asking themselves the same question. “Does he see? Does he see?”

New Guy realizes he could be very much in danger soon. Raising his hands, he adopts a soothing tone. “Ah, yes, I do see. Mono is alright.”

A pause.

“I mean Good.”

The men lean in, eager for more.

“Ah, I mean Mono is the awesome rocks.”

The men smile and clap and all nod to one another. The relief in the room is palpable.

BaconMeter will be a mono app.

Image released under the mono-nono.com Community Promise. Patent sharing secretive deals also available. We do not offer GPLv3, so quit asking you smelly hippies.

This isn’t very informative, it’s really only 3 Q&A with Miguel de Icaza.

What’s interesting to me is the entire first question is basically another defense of Microsoft that has almost nothing to do directly with mono, and ends up with a little shot at the crazies. I just covered the oddness of always defending Microsoft in my last post, so no need to re-hash it again.

The last two questions are solid, even if they don’t add any new information.

1. Be sure the standard bits of mono are safe.

The Community Promise looks pretty good here. I would be very interested to hear any reasonable attack that could be brought to bear against the standard bits of mono by Microsoft.

No concern here.

2. Make sure non-standard and standard bits are clearly separate.

Based on the comments and reading I have done, the mono team is already on top of this, or in some cases already done.

No concern here.

3. Do not get into a situation where the non-standard bits are required.

Team mono obviously wants to see mono as an important and wide-spread platform. That’s great. Is mono without the non-standard bits good enough to do that? Or will it be one of those things where to really get any use out of it, you need those special bits? Microsoft talked about this in internal emails specifically.

Can we get an honest mono proponent to talk about how vital non-standardized features (AppDomain, WinForms, ADO.NET, etc.  are for “real” developers)?

For example, say someone wanted GNOME 4.0 built in mono. Can you do everything you need and stay within the standard? If not, start working on Microsoft to get those bits standardized and under the Community Promise.

This could turn into an issue, but I don’t think there is enough concern here to get all up in arms about. I would just keep an eye on future mono projects and see if there is a big use of the non-standard bits.

4. Get those non-standard bits safe.

Novell absolutely needs to be taking the lead on getting Microsoft to apply the Community Promise on other interesting bits of .NET. I know that’s going to be a tough road, but that’s part of the responsibility you took on.

Slight concern here, going back to point 3. Plus, the more stuff you can set free the better, right?

5. Get honest in your promotion of mono.

If people are demanding better protection and assurances, then deliver them.  From day one – when I was considering implementing a project using C# – all the mono apologetics struck me as hinky. As time went on, I moved from apathy to activity against mono.

I understand you may feel sick and tired of dealing with criticism, but you have to know that dealing closely with Microsoft you are going to face extraordinary distrust. So, you must provide extraordinary assurances. Fair or not, that’s the reality.

No real concern here, things get nasty because the internet is serious business – gloat for a while and then get on with things. If some new controversy breaks out, handle it better.

6. Get control of C#.

Mono likes to play up that it has a few namespaces that .NET doesn’t, like Mono.Simd. Does it make sense to get those in the standard?

One of the fears people have is that Microsoft could somehow change the standard so that no one could implement it properly. Another is a distaste for using a company-specific language – it just “feels” proprietary.

The more C# / CLI are perceived as being “real” independent standards, and not just rubber stamps for Microsoft, the better mono looks. It also assures those who think mono’s life is tied to Microsoft’s support of C#/CLI. Microsoft has been known to crazy promote a technology and then abandon it, where would that leave mono’s long term prospects?

Slight concern here, but again nothing to get up in arms about.

7. Moonlight

You have to get that garbage safe. The so-called covenant is downright anti-community – you know it, I know it, and the American people know it.

All sorts of concern here, but offset by the fact that I doubt Silverlight has more than 29 users worldwide, and I would guess moonlight has about 7, including Miguel. Also, every other 3rd post on the internet isn’t about how moonlight is awesome rocks and better than any other application ever and needs to be on the desktop of every distro.

Closing up shop?

No, not yet – I’ll be sticking around a bit to see how things develop. I won’t be searching out old arguments or points, because there is no denying that things are changed.