A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

[GreyGeek]

A long time Windows column editor emphasizes an old claim that MONO is platform neutral. In it he cites a favorite de Icaza claim:

Programmers are people with strong opinions. Some people would like more Python or Java; more power to you. Use what you want! But people like [the anti-Mono advocacy group] Boycott Novell do not write a single line of code, so I think there's advocacy coming from people who do not contribute in any real way. They don't even come to the conferences; they're not part of the community in a substantive fashion.

"I'm open to fixing any issues that Mono has. I don't say that Mono is bug-free. They seem to have a more philosophical issue; that Mono is a Microsoft-derived technology, and anything from Microsoft is the devil. I don't think it's a very intellectually honest debate if you start off on that position. And the problem I have is that once you take an extreme position, there's no room for working to a solution."

First, claiming that MONO is "platform neutral" is total nonsense. MONO is more than "joined at the hip" with .NET. It IS .NET. It even includes parts of .NET that are not under the ECMA 334 &335 (WinForms, ADO,. ADP, etc..) and subject, at Microsoft's convenience, to IP lawsuits. MONO is at 2.4.2. Microsoft is about to release .NET 4. So MONO isn't even current with .NET and applications built with MONO could not technically compete with similar .NET applications because .NET programmers can use capabilities added to .NET that won't be in MONO for years, if ever. The whole purpose of the "Glimps of the future...?" thread was to point out that Microsoft added patented COM changes to SilverLight 4 specifically to block MONO on Apple's applet store, after having allowed Apple users to become dependent on MONO/MoonLight based iPhone applets.

.NET is Microsoft's API. MONO is a .NET clone. It is, therefor, Microsoft's API. And, as creator and first manager of the Technical Evangelist group at Microsoft said, "Any code written to Microsoft's API is a WIN for Microsoft...".


de Icaza's second claim, people who appose MONO don't write code, is ludicrous. For that to be true, EVERY FOSS coder would have to be a MONO coder as well, and that is certainly false. MONO is apposed by many, some could say even MORE, FOSS coders who contribute to the Kernel and various GTK and Qt FOSS projects. Even the owner of BN writes software, albeit for his doctoral thesis on medical imaging software. That claim also assumes that ONLY MONO coders have a right to discuss MONO being on Linux. Those who contribute their time (testing, bug reporting, documentation writing) or their money to FOSS aren't entitled to have a say in MONO being on the platform unless, of course, they agree with de Icaza's goal of making the Linux destop dependent on Microsoft's API. The is a position of extreme hubris.

It is not surprising that coders who do not agree with making the Linux desktop dependent on MONO wouldn't go to MONO conferences, or attend MONO adjunct meetings being held at FOSS conferences. Why should they? Then to claim they are "not part of the community" begs the question: which community? The Linux community or the MONO community? The two communities may have some SMALL overlap, but that does not make them equivalent.

Finally, de Icaza claims that those who appose MONO have taken an "extreme position", and so "there's no room for working to a solution". Consider the extreme position claim. Prior to Novell purchasing de Icaza's coding business, and then Novell forming an alliance with Microsoft, MONO was nothing more than de Icaza's experiment with Microsoft's technology, if it was just an experiment. Prior to November 2, 2006 there existed NO major political move to force MONO into Linux and to hijack the GNOME desktop. ALL of the major pro-MONO activity has taken place since Novell & Microsoft began working together to divide and conqueror the Linux community. MOST of the pro-MONO advocates masquerading as Penguins are developers (private or commercial) who prefer and still use Windows as their platform, and see MONO as a method to sell their .NET shareware in a market that owns over 12% of the desktop market share, and growing. The most active pro-MONO folks are employees of firms that use ./NET as their development tool, and have purchased seats on the Ubuntu Advisory Board.

To refresh your history of the "deal", refer to it at: http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft and notice the occurrence of the word "royalty", and the dichotomy between those who are threatened by lawsuits (coders whose GPL code doesn't make it into SLES) and those who are not (coders whose code does enter the commercial version of SUSE). Why the difference? ROYALTIES paid to Microsoft by Novell for each copy of SLES sold. Said royalty payments "bridge the IP gap", according to Ballmer, and in his mind "proves" IP violations by Linux. By his refusal to dispute those claims Hovsepian gives the consent of silence. The video gives good visual indications of what is the intent of the participants.

I ask you to read that because those who use MONO on SUSE Enterprise Linux Server have protection from a Microsoft lawsuit for using components of MONO which are not under the ECMA. Those who use OpenSUSE or any other distro are NOT protected from an MS lawsuit. If work on making Ubuntu dependent on MONO continues I predict that Microsoft will allow it to continue UNTIL such dependency is too deep to casually remove. Then they will sue.

With the current condition of MONO, what "solution" would work to the advantage of FOSS and Linux? None. What solution would avoid the IP threat? None. One can also ask "what is the problem on Linux that MONO is the solution to?" The claim by MONO coders is that MONO is the best development tool available to Linux. That claim is obviously bogus. IF MONO were the best then why do they need GTK# bindings for MONO in order to make graphical interfaces and dialogs with their apps? Why are they always behind .NET on Windows? Obviously because of patent concerns. The gcc, gdb and the GTK2+ API have given Ubuntu an excellent GNOME desktop, Thunderbird, FireFox, VLC, and many other excellent applications. ALL of it is under the GPL and is free of any known, valid or putative IP threat.

In addition to GTK, there is Qt4. The latest KDE4 is a fantastic desktop. It is, IMO, superior to any Windows or Apple desktop I have ever used. It is what VISTA wanted to be and copied much of. QtCreator & Qt4 is even more powerful and better integrated into a single GUI RAD development tool than any other on the planet. I used MS VC++ 6.0 at work for several years. It doesn't hold a candle to Qt/QtCreator. Of course, that is just my opinion, based on my experience and my preference. Those are the exact same reasons why Windows developers choose MONO, instead of Visual C++, VisualFoxPro, or other GUI RAD tools available on Windows. (Which, although they say are "VISUAL" and OOP, aren't necessarily either visual or OOP.)

MONO enthusiasts claim that they can write once and compile and run on any platform and that MONO is RAD (Rapid Application Development). While developing with GTK on Windows is possible using MinGW compiler and imported Linux utilities, the GTK/Windows combination is klutzy at best and not RAD. QT4, on the other hand is both write once, run anyware AND GUI RAD. It is also unencumbered by IP threats or in need of bindings to make up for abilities it does not have. Java is still universal. It is still state of the art.

.NET was created to compete against Java and its jvm (java virtual machine) and jit (just in time compilation). MONO/.NET use a vm and a jit, which, they claim, runs MONO/.NET apps as fast as a natively compiled C or C++ app. I was on SecondLife before they switched to the MONO powered engine. Quite frankly, running MONO, I see NO improvement in SecondLife's speed or in the number of avatars which can occupy a sim before it lags into uselessness. The limit was 70 before MONO is still is after MONO. The most frequent complaint on SL is "lag, lag, lag, lag, lag" surrounded by a flood of profanity. .NET's solution for the London Stock Exchange was FIVE TIMES SLOWER than existing stock market trading applications running under Linux, which the LSE has now purchased to replace their .NET "solution". Java is still around on Linux and Windows and with the many available GUI RAD front ends it is yet another GUI RAD tool in which one can write once and use on any platform. A skilled Java developer has no trouble matching the development speed of a skilled MONO developer. I have an application called DRUID II, which is a java jar file that runs on either Linux or Windows without changes, if one has the Java jvm installed on the platform. It allows me to design, create, manage, edit and document a variety of database back ends, graphically. To run it on any platform I issue

java -jar druidii.jar

It is a classic example of a cross platform application built with Java. I used it to export my Oracle dbs to PostgreSQL, and visa-versa.

Here is my workable solution for using MONO on Linux. Microsoft should do with .NET what TrollTech did with Qt. Put ALL of .NET under the ECMA 334 & 335 standards, and the Community Promise, including future developments, just as TrollTech did with Qt under the GPL, and then I will have NO problem with MONO being on Linux or of a MONO powered desktop. Otherwise, MONO is represents a valid IP patent concern for Linux users.

[dibl]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Nice dissertation -- very informative! Thanks, GG!

[arochester]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

There is an interesting article on about Mono on Planet Crunchbang by Martijn Cielen at the moment:

About MONO and lack of respect for personal opinions.

Earlier today I was astonished to find out FOSDEM will have a MONO devroom. When I reacted to this on identica stating this was not a good idea. Reinout van Schouwen reacted saying "We should *strongly* support !freesoftware, no matter what platform it is written for or what language is used."
I pointed out to him that ""free" software can never be written in a non-free language". I could have expected to get the typical MONO-evangelist's answer: "Stop spreading #FUD, please. http://www.mono-project.com/Languages", so I replied with a quote from MS: "Every piece of code written to our standards is a small victory".
Apparently Mr van Schouwen didn't get my point and dragged dear old RMS into the discussion: "So you'd rather have no !freesoftware at all than FS written to MS standards? Even #RMS knows better than that." and when I pointed out his mistake: "maybe you should read again and try to understand what I wrote...", he quickly sent me a final message: "Maybe you should address facts and arguments instead of evading them with transparent rhetoric. #endofdiscussion".

Now, Mr van Schouwen, for me this is not the end of the discussion. I will try to explain to you and every other MONO evangelist why in my personal opinion MONO should be avoided at all cost:

1. We don't need MONO. Many terrific programs have been written in other languages.
2. We don't need MONO. We are on Linux, Unix, BSD or whatever. MONO is invented by MS. Let them use it, and let us stick with other programming languages.
3. We don't need MONO. MS says "Every piece of code written to our standards is a small victory, every piece of code written to other standards is a small defeat." The Open Source Community (further referred to as OSC) has fought many battles over many years to make people aware of the fact that there is a world outside MS. Don't start blindly following them again now, but let OSC set the standards.
4. We don't want MONO. It's based on MS owned technology. As with any other MS owned product, it's almost guaranteed to break backward compatibility at some point.
5. We don't want MONO. If we allow MONO to sneak in to Linux, I foresee a pretty dark future for Linux. As the OSC community grows, more and more people will start developing for it. As the MONO acceptance grows, more and more people will start developing in MONO. In the end, the entire operqting system will be MS compatible, and Linux operating systems will have no unique selling points. Average users don't care about ethics and don't "pay" for their MS license anyway.
6. Some people seem to love the FSF's campaign against MS Windows 7, but on the other hand have no issue in using MS technology for their own benefit. Talking about hypocrisy.

I hope to have given you a basic idea, Mr van Schouwen, about my personal opinion about MONO. Now, even if you disagree, would it be asked too much to respect my opinion?

by martijn at December 04, 2009 12:25 PM

[GreyGeek]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

What? van Schouwen didn't call Martijn Cielen an "MS Hater"?

[Ole Juul]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Nice dissertation -- very informative! Thanks, GG!

Yep, that GG guy sure does a lot of homework! I'm glad he's sharing his notes with us so we can all pass.

[GreyGeek]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Ya, the midterm test is fast approaching!!!

[sithlord48]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

the grey geek strikes again, wonderful reporting.

QtCreator & Qt4 is even more powerful and better integrated into a single GUI RAD development tool than any other on the planet.

yea qt creator is Great so far, just getting used to using it my self have been fiddleing w/ it a bit. redoing old project's with it for fun! i have project coming up soon that i plan to use qt for.its a program for work that needs to work on win XP correctly. from the testing i have been doing w/ a copy of qtcreator on a machine a work (running xp) and my laptop at work w/ kubuntu 9.10 and qtcreator. porting so far has been a matter of importing the project to the xp box's copy of qt and building the project i have not had to change a SINGLE line of code! IMHO qt would be a better crossplatfom lang then .net i mean mono....then again i have never used mono to code ne thing.

[blobfish]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

the Qt framework is wonderful!

[GreyGeek]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

I agree, it is a JOY to use.

The QtSql module has wonderful db tools.

QSqlDatabase is simplicity itself.

QSqlDatabase db = QSqlDatabase::addDatabase("QPSQL");
db.setHostName("acidalia");
db.setDatabaseName("customdb");
db.setUserName("mojito");
db.setPassword("J0a1m8");
bool ok = db.open();

Here is the main.cpp for one of my applications:

//main.cpp

#include <QApplication>
#include <QSqlDatabase>
#include <QSqlError>
#include <QMessageBox>
#include <QDir>
#include "homestead.h"
#include "dlglogin.h"

#define DBDRIVER "QPSQL"
#define DBHOST "localhost"
#define DBNAME "hap2008"


int main( int argc, char * argv&#91;] ) {
QString lockFileName = QDir::currentPath();
lockFileName.append("/JLK_Lock.txt");
QFile file(lockFileName);
if (file.exists()){
exit(0); // if the "JLK_Lock.txt" files exists don't let folks log in.
}
QString strRejected = "";
QApplication app(argc, argv);
app.setQuitOnLastWindowClosed(false);
dlgLogin dlg;
if( dlg.exec() == QDialog::Accepted ){
QSqlDatabase hapdb = QSqlDatabase::addDatabase(DBDRIVER);
hapdb.setHostName(DBHOST);
hapdb.setDatabaseName(DBNAME);
hapdb.setUserName(dlg.dui.leUserName->text());
hapdb.setPassword(dlg.dui.leUserPassword->text());
if ( hapdb.open() ) {
// The hapdb is now the default and can be accessed without reference to it
// in homestead.cpp and other code. if one creates a pointer:
// QSqlQuery *propQry = new QSqlQuery;
// then
// propQry->exec("select proprty_id, county, countyname from property_2008");
// creates a cursor with all the rows that satisfy the select because hapdb
// is automatically references.
// If more than one database needs to be opened simultaneously consult
// the QtSql module in the QT documentation for information
// on how to do this.
homestead ht;
ht.RevID = dlg.dui.leUserName->text();
ht.show();
app.setQuitOnLastWindowClosed(true);
return app.exec();
} else {
strRejected = QString("Reason: %1").arg(hapdb.lastError().text()).toLatin1();
QMessageBox::information(0,"Login Rejected!",strRejected,
QMessageBox::Ok,QMessageBox::NoButton,QMessageBox: :NoButton);
return 1;
}
} else {
strRejected = QString("User Canceled the login!").toLatin1();
QMessageBox::information(0,"Login Canceled!",strRejected,
QMessageBox::Ok,QMessageBox::NoButton,QMessageBox: :NoButton);
return 2;
}
}

which connects to the PostgreSQL backend and then throws up the DlgLogin dialog screen to prompt for the clerk's username and password. If accepted then the main Homestead application screen is displayed. DBDRIVER contains the name of the db driver used and is used in the app to switch between code which is for Oracle and that which is for PostgreSQL.

Dialog.h contains:

#ifndef DLGLOGIN_H
#define DLGLOGIN_H
#include "ui_dlglogin.h"

class dlgLogin : public QDialog
{
Q_OBJECT // adds garbage collection along with automatic pointer control.

public:
Ui::dlgLoginUi dui;
dlgLogin()
{
// this dialog called with 'dlgLogin dlg' in main.cpp. Only ID and password required in UI. No cpp file.
dui.setupUi(this); // instantiate the dialog GUI "this" refers to the GUI "dui", which is created with QDesigner
dui.leUserName->setText("");
dui.leUserPassword->setText("");
dui.leUserName->setFocus();
dui.leUserName->selectAll();
}
};

#endif

This code was written using MS VC++ 2003. QtCreator wasn't released until after I retired, but I've used it every since it was released and it is being used on this app at work.

The QtCreator has autocompletion which automatically displays all properties and methods for a class, and the parameters of each property or method, but a movie is worth a thousand words. Here is a youtube video showing how to code a browser using QtCreator. In the panel on the right side are many other tutorial videos on QtCreator.

[Ole Juul]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Here is a youtube video showing how to code a browser using QtCreator.

Great, now every Tom Dick and Harry will want to get their browser on the Microsoft browser ballot.

[GreyGeek]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

[Raven-sb]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

First, claiming that MONO is "platform neutral" is total nonsense. MONO is more than "joined at the hip" with .NET. It IS .NET. It even includes parts of .NET that are not under the ECMA 334 &335 (WinForms, ADO,. ADP, etc..) and subject, at Microsoft's convenience, to IP lawsuits. MONO is at 2.4.2. Microsoft is about to release .NET 4. So MONO isn't even current with .NET and applications built with MONO could not technically compete with similar .NET applications because .NET programmers can use capabilities added to .NET that won't be in MONO for years, if ever. The whole purpose of the "Glimps of the future...?" thread was to point out that Microsoft added patented COM changes to SilverLight 4 specifically to block MONO on Apple's applet store, after having allowed Apple users to become dependent on MONO/MoonLight based iPhone applets.

There are two issues here, 1. Platform Neutral and 2. Mono's version as opposed to .Net's version.

1. Platform Neutral Mono is a cross-platform implementation of C# that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. Microsoft's implementation only runs on Windows.

2. Mono's version as opposed to .Net's version. Half correct. You are confusing the version number of Mono with the features of the C# language. You are right, currently Microsoft is working towards releasing version 4 of C# (and the other .Net technologies), mono currently supports version 3.0 of C# and in fact it had implemented a lot of those features before Microsoft had released it's official C#3.0 version to the public.

Update Mono is now compliant with C# 4.0 see http://mareksafar.blogspot.com/2009/...-and-c-40.html

.NET is Microsoft's API. MONO is a .NET clone. It is, therefor, Microsoft's API. And, as creator and first manager of the Technical Evangelist group at Microsoft said, "Any code written to Microsoft's API is a WIN for Microsoft...".

Other C# implementations exist besides Mono including http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu dotgnu with their Portable.Net project. http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html"

de Icaza's second claim, people who appose MONO don't write code, is ludicrous. For that to be true, EVERY FOSS coder would have to be a MONO coder as well, and that is certainly false.

Actually what he said was

Programmers are people with strong opinions. Some people would like more Python or Java; more power to you. Use what you want! But people like [the anti-Mono advocacy group] Boycott Novell do not write a single line of code, so I think there's advocacy coming from people who do not contribute in any real way. They don't even come to the conferences; they're not part of the community in a substantive fashion.

Not Every FOSS coder would have to be a MONO coder (how you get that from what he said is beyond me) and not that every person who opposes mono doesn't write code, and NOT the only people who have the right to oppose mono are CODERS.

He's saying that if you don't like Mono and don't want to use it then don't. Use what works for you. He is also saying that a there is a group in the community whose sole purpose is not to contribute to the community but to troll forums and flame mailing lists telling people not to use mono. He has a point. How many anti-mono zealots who are jumping on to this bandwagon have contributed to the Linux community? How many of them have documented, written code, donated? Sure some have done that, and more power to them. But there are others who do nothing but spread their anti-mono stance to anyone who will read or listen to them. They don't code, they don't donate, they don't 'contribute', yet they flame mailing lists and forums with their hatred of a language that no one is forcing them to use. If you don't want to use mono, then don't use it. Use a distribution that doesn't include mono apps, or uninstall mono and mono apps that come with the distro of your choice if you choose. No one is forcing anyone to use mono.

It is not surprising that coders who do not agree with making the Linux desktop dependent on MONO wouldn't go to MONO conferences, or attend MONO adjunct meetings being held at FOSS conferences. Why should they? Then to claim they are "not part of the community" begs the question: which community? The Linux community or the MONO community? The two communities may have some SMALL overlap, but that does not make them equivalent.

Again, he says conferences, you say MONO CONFERENCES there's a difference. Also no where does he state that the Linux desktop is going to be dependent upon Mono. Even Gnome, which has around forty gtk mono applications, is not dependent upon Mono. You can run Gnome, KDE, or any of the other Linux desktop environments without mono if you so choose.

Finally, de Icaza claims that those who appose MONO have taken an "extreme position", and so "there's no room for working to a solution". Consider the extreme position claim.

Most people who are anti mono are so because Microsoft invented C# and the .Net technologies. They are extreme in their hatred of Microsoft and anything to do with Microsoft. I can understand where they are coming from, and in some cases agree.

Prior to Novell purchasing de Icaza's coding business, and then Novell forming an alliance with Microsoft, MONO was nothing more than de Icaza's experiment with Microsoft's technology, if it was just an experiment. Prior to November 2, 2006 there existed NO major political move to force MONO into Linux and to hijack the GNOME desktop. ALL of the major pro-MONO activity has taken place since Novell & Microsoft began working together to divide and conqueror the Linux community.

Please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that 'Novell and Microsoft are out to divide and conqueror the Linux community. Also please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that MONO is being forced into Linux and is hijacking the GNOME desktop. Thank you.

MOST of the pro-MONO advocates masquerading as Penguins are developers (private or commercial) who prefer and still use Windows as their platform, and see MONO as a method to sell their .NET shareware in a market that owns over 12% of the desktop market share, and growing.

Again provide evidence of this (the second part of this claim). The first part of this claim is offensive. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they are not pro-Linux, Linux advocates or part of the Linux community.

The most active pro-MONO folks are employees of firms that use ./NET as their development tool, and have purchased seats on the Ubuntu Advisory Board.

This is the most disturbing claim you make. Please back up this claim or remove it and stop spreading it. You are implying here that active pro-Mono people have purchased seats on the Ubuntu Advisory Board which in turn implies that they are attempting to undermine Ubuntu with mono. That's a serious accusation to make, especially coming from a forum moderator on a Kubuntu forum.

Conclusion

GreyGeek, whilst I respect your viewpoints I disagree with a lot of them - not all, but a lot. I realize I'm in the minority here on this forums, which is fine. It's interesting that before your posts I was tending towards being anti-mono. Having read your claims and researched them, I'm now tending towards the other side of the coin.

Thank you for an interesting read.

Raven

[GreyGeek]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

....
There are two issues here, 1. Platform Neutral and 2. Mono's version as opposed to .Net's version.

1. Platform Neutral Mono is a cross-platform implementation of C# that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. Microsoft's implementation only runs on Windows.

2. Mono's version as opposed to .Net's version. Half correct. You are confusing the version number of Mono with the features of the C# language. You are right, currently Microsoft is working towards releasing version 4 of C# (and the other .Net technologies), mono currently supports version 3.0 of C# and in fact it had implemented a lot of those features before Microsoft had released it's official C#3.0 version to the public.

Raven, every platform has to have a vm/jit which are native binaries of THAT platform in order for C# & the ".NET" clone to run in the interpretive mode as fast as possible. That .NET itself only runs on Windows isn't the point The point is that de Icaza and his team HAVE TO maintain MONO's compatibility with .NET (more on that later) so that applications source code can be imported to other supported platforms and compiled & run with minimum code changes, in order to minimize application developers efforts. While he may add features to MONO which are not in .NET, features in MONO MUST be compatible with the same features in .NET or .NET apps developed under Windows cannot be easily transported to other platforms, if at all. IF Microsoft later adds features to .NET which overlap or mimic features that de Icaza has already added to MONO but they are not API compatible then MONO's compatibility with .NET across platforms is damaged or destroyed.

de Icaza has often repeated that his motive for bringing MONO to Linux & Mac is because of his LOVE of Microsoft's "technology". He wouldn't be "loving" Microsoft's technology if he took MONO off onto a tangent which diminished or abandon its mimicking of .NET on Linux or Mac.

.NET is Microsoft's API. MONO is a .NET clone. It is, therefor, Microsoft's API. And, as creator and first manager of the Technical Evangelist group at Microsoft said, "Any code written to Microsoft's API is a WIN for Microsoft...".

Other C# implementations exist besides Mono including http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu dotgnu with their Portable.Net project. http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/pnet.html"

That's a spacious quibble. NO C# implementation can exist on ANY other platform (except Windows) without being 100% conforming to the ECMA 334 & 335 specifications, and it is MICROSOFT who reserves the right to determine if the clone is 100% conforming. This relates to your other quibble above. IF MONO diverges from the conformancy requirements of ECMA 334 & 335 then they are outside the protection of the ECMA and subject to Microsoft's legal action at Microsoft's discretion.

.........

Actually what he said was

Programmers are people with strong opinions. Some people would like more Python or Java; more power to you. Use what you want! But people like [the anti-Mono advocacy group] Boycott Novell do not write a single line of code, so I think there's advocacy coming from people who do not contribute in any real way. They don't even come to the conferences; they're not part of the community in a substantive fashion.

Not Every FOSS coder would have to be a MONO coder (how you get that from what he is is beyond me) and not that every person who opposes mono doesn't write code, and NOT the only people who have the right to oppose mono are CODERS.

He's saying that if you don't like Mono and don't want to use it then don't. Use what works for you. He is also saying that a there is a group in the community whose sole purpose is not to contribute to the community but to troll forums and flame mailing lists telling people not to use mono. He has a point. How many anti-mono zealots who are jumping on to this bandwagon have contributed to the Linux community? How many of them have documented, written code, donated? Sure some have done that, and more power to them. But there are others who do nothing but spread their anti-mono stance to anyone who will read or listen to them. They don't code, they don't donate, they don't 'contribute', yet they flame mailing lists and forums with their hatred of a language that no one is forcing them to use. If you don't want to use mono, then don't use it. Use a distribution that doesn't include mono apps, or uninstall mono and mono apps that come with the distro of your choice if you choose. No one is forcing anyone to use mono.

You have NO WAY of knowing what any particular member of the Linux community contributes to the community, or not, based merely on their view point of MONO. Neither does de Icaza. To say "... people like [the anti-Mono advocacy group] Boycott Novell do not write a single line of code, so I think there's advocacy coming from people who do not contribute in any real way. They don't even come to the conferences; they're not part of the community in a substantive fashion. " is to assign guilt by association: "You don't agree with MONO on Linux? Then you must be part of the BN group". That assumes, Raven, that folks who contribute to or run BN are not members of the Linux community simple because they appose MONO on Linux. BN's "crime" is to continue to point out the misdeeds of Microsoft and its allies have committed against FOSS, and there are many. So, those who try to protect Linux from Microsoft are not members of the community but those who promote making the Linux desktop dependent on Microsoft's API (MONO) are? Day is night, good is evil, right is wrong.

It is not surprising that coders who do not agree with making the Linux desktop dependent on MONO wouldn't go to MONO conferences, or attend MONO adjunct meetings being held at FOSS conferences. Why should they? Then to claim they are "not part of the community" begs the question: which community? The Linux community or the MONO community? The two communities may have some SMALL overlap, but that does not make them equivalent.

Again, he says conferences, you say MONO CONFERENCES there's a difference. Also no where does he state that the Linux desktop is going to be dependent upon Mono. Even Gnome, which has around forty gtk mono applications, is not dependent upon Mono. You can run Gnome, KDE, or any of the other Linux desktop environments without mono if you so choose.

You're quibbling again. His reference to "conferences" was in regards to the ones he attends. Re-read what I said about FOSS conferences and MONO conferences that were adjuncts to FOSS conferences. I merely pointed out that a FOSS coder who didn't agree with importing Microsoft's API to the Linux desktop wouldn't waste his/her time attending conferences about MONO which, I believe, was the kind of conferences de Icaza was talking about.

In regard to your last assertion, you HAVEN'T read the June 29th minutes of the UTB meeting, have you? That Ubuntu isn't dependent on MONO "now" is meaningless to the question of the future of Ubuntu. Besides, the only way MONO can currently have GUI interfaces without violating the terms of the ECMA and Microsoft's IP, in regards to WinForms, ADO, ASP, etc., it to bind MONO to the GTK+ API's that create windows and dialogs. de Icaza claims he will write replacements for those GUI .NET components without violating Microsoft's IP, but that's only a big gamble for those who do not use SUSE, because of Novell's legal arrangements with Microsoft. Other distros cannot afford to be so cavalier. The requirements of the ECMA also means that ANY implementation of the ECMA 334 & 335, ON ANY PLATFORM, WHAT EVER the coders call it, must CONFORM or it is illegal.

.......

Prior to Novell purchasing de Icaza's coding business, and then Novell forming an alliance with Microsoft, MONO was nothing more than de Icaza's experiment with Microsoft's technology, if it was just an experiment. Prior to November 2, 2006 there existed NO major political move to force MONO into Linux and to hijack the GNOME desktop. ALL of the major pro-MONO activity has taken place since Novell & Microsoft began working together to divide and conqueror the Linux community.

Please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that 'Novell and Microsoft are out to divide and conqueror the Linux community. Also please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that MONO is being forced into Linux and is hijacking the GNOME desktop. Thank you.

Quoting "credible" makes it an insulting insinuation. You doubt that evidence exists?

Have you listened to the video of the Novell & Microsoft "agreement"? If not, do so. If you have, watch it more closely. Read the transcript, too, and pay careful attention to 1) the term "royalty" and what it refers to, 2) the "IP bridge" Ballmer brags about and what it means, and 3) the "umbrella of protection" Microsoft offers to FOSS coders who contribute GPL code to the commercial version of SUSE, and their legal threat against EVERY OTHER FOSS coder who contributes GPL code to other distros, INCLUDING OpenSUSE. The GPL gives everyone who receives a GPL'd application certain rights and freedoms. The Novell & Microsoft agreement gives MORE freedoms to SUSE contributors and fewer rights to non-SUSE contributors, even if their code is under the GPL. It is the ax of a legal threat that Novell & Microsoft hangs over the heads of all other distros. This dichotomy has been commented on many times in the last three years. I'm surprised you missed it.

As to your second assertion, I already have. But, continuing beyond the video, start with the minutes of the UTB meeting of June 29, 2009 and go from there.

MOST of the pro-MONO advocates masquerading as Penguins are developers (private or commercial) who prefer and still use Windows as their platform, and see MONO as a method to sell their .NET shareware in a market that owns over 12% of the desktop market share, and growing.

Again provide evidence of this (the second part of this claim). The first part of this claim is offensive. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they are not pro-Linux, Linux advocates or part of the Linux community.

When is fact offensive? Besides, MONO advocates aren't necesarily Linux advocates. And, when have I ever said that if someone doesn't agree with me they are anti-Linux? As to the second part, I have tracked the bio's of most of the major MONO players and their camp followers. Wih few exception most state that their platform of preference is Windows, or that they are only familiar with Windows tools, or that their development tool is Visual Studio, or that their professional connection with computers is because of their knowledge of and/or use of Windows. Don't take my word for it. Pick a few of the major MONO players claiming to be Penguins and follow their comments around the web and see what they say. Track the frequency and time span of their comments on Linux forums and then on Windows forums and see where they spend their time and make most of their comments. Remember, keeping a Linux box or VM around but rarely using it doesn't make you a Linux user any more than keeping a box of tools around but not using them make you a mechanic.

The most active pro-MONO folks are employees of firms that use ./NET as their development tool, and have purchased seats on the Ubuntu Advisory Board.

This is the most disturbing claim you make. Please back up this claim or remove it and stop spreading it. You are implying here that active pro-Mono people have purchased seats on the Ubuntu Advisory Board which in turn implies that they are attempting to undermine Ubuntu with mono. That's a serious accusation to make, especially coming from a forum moderator on a Kubuntu forum.

No, it isn't "disturbing", and you know it. You're being pompous. You think that by challenging the statement you are on high moral ground, don't you? You're not. Being on the board is merely business. Firms like those that employee "Lefty" to make pro-MONO postings all over the web didn't give thousands to Canonical for charity. They gave it to have access and input to the decision making process that is guiding Ubuntu, and they want that direction to be to where they can continue to use their .NET source to deploy MONO apps to Linux desktops with a minimal of expense to their bottom line. THAT is what is driving this whole pro-MONO business.

Re-read the UTB minutes I referred to above, and consider the meaning of the "special contributor method" that was set up in those minutes, and ask yourself that if Ubuntu ALREADY has a methodology of accepting applications for addition to the remix, what do they need a "special" way to add "other kinds" of apps. What other kinds?

Conclusion

GreyGeek, whilst I respect your viewpoints I disagree with a lot of them - not all, but a lot. I realize I'm in the minority here on this forums, which is fine. It's interesting that before your posts I was tending towards being anti-mono. Having read your claims and researched them, I'm now tending towards the other side of the coin.

Thank you for an interesting read.

Raven

How very generous of you, Raven, but it doesn't say anything about your cognitive or reasoning skills if you let your attitudes about MONO on the Linux desktop be determined the by writings of someone like me who apposes it, instead investigating for yourself the facts and principles involved, and making up your own mind. That's like saying you are going switch to allegiance to China because you don't like what Americans say about the Chinese dictatorship. After all, they have clauses in their constitution which guarantee freedom of speech, of assembly and of worship, and they are always talking about "getting along", and avoiding "pro democracy" extremists because they claim they are a democracy, so what is there to loose by switching?

But, we're just playing word games here, aren't we Raven. I'm not really "the excuse". You've always been pro-MONO, haven't you? Guess what? I don't care. You support it, I appose it. So what? As long as it's a threat to the distro I use I will continue to appose it.

BTW, You DID read the UTB minutes of June 29th, 2009, which said that future remixes of the Ubuntu desktop will be dependent on MONO, didn't you? You DO UNDERSTAND what DEPENDENT means, don't you? No need to "force" MONO onto Ubuntu, the UTB has already capitulated, and Microsoft's API will soon control the Ubuntu desktop. As long as MONO doesn't creep into Kubuntu, or I can install the MONO libs and runtime without making Kubuntu unusable, I'll stay with it. BUT, IF Debian becomes dependent on MONO, and there is a push for that to become a reality as we write, then every upstream distro based on Debian will be FORCED to accept MONO or change to another base.

[Ole Juul]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that 'Novell and Microsoft are out to divide and conqueror the Linux community. . . . Thank you.

IMO, asking questions like that is not contributing to this thread. You should have those answers already - use Google. If you don't have the answers yourself then it sounds like you are asking others to do your homework.

[Raven-sb]

Re: A WORKABLE solution for using MONO on Linux!

Please provide 'credible' evidence to back up your claim that 'Novell and Microsoft are out to divide and conqueror the Linux community. . . . Thank you.

IMO, asking questions like that is not contributing to this thread. You should have those answers already - use Google. If you don't have the answers yourself then it sounds like you are asking others to do your homework.

hmmm, it's standard practice that if you are going to make claims such as the ones that GreyGeek has made that you cite the references to back them up. I'm not asking him to do my homework as you suggest. I'm asking him to back up some of the more serious accusations he has made with some evidence.

I used the term credible evidence because one of GG favorite sites is Boycott Novell and some of the things that that site has published as fact is suspect.

In the end it's simple, in my opinion GreyGeek is using emotive language to make some very serious accusations. I feel he is using these forums and his position as moderator to push his own political viewpoint. That's fine, all I'm asking is that he backs up his accusations with fact.