Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304611
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sigh, am I really doing this?
by elsewhere on Wed 12th Mar 2008 04:55 UTC
Member since:

Wow, I never in a million years thought I'd be posting in defense of mono, but the cliche'd rhetoric is getting over the top.

mono and the Windows .net compatability components are two separate things. C# is an ECMA standard, and MS has provided a will-not-sue provision. Their developers have even worked with, though not contributed alongside, the mono developers. Microsoft's ability to sue for patent infringement has been effectively waived. Of course there's nothing to stop them from trying, but their ability to actually win a legal challenge, alongside the fallout they could receive for trying, makes the probability virtually nil. The fact that Fedora accepted mono should also be an endorsement of that position, because despite the arms-length separation of Red Hat, there's no way they would have permitted it if legal felt there was a liability. Blogosphere pundits may have their own opinions, but I suspect that Red Hat's lawyers have opinions that are somewhat more qualified.

Now, the Windows components are a separate issue. But you can develop quite comfortably with mono and GTK#, and Gnome really needed a comprehensive application framework, which nobody had stepped up to deliver. Even KDE is going to be providing C# bindings. It's about providing options to developers.

I find mono to be ridiculously bloated and resource intensive from my own experience with mono-apps, but I will also acknowledge that the developers have been going to great pains to try and improve it, with respectable results.

I don't need mono, I don't particularly want mono, but I will defend mono if the best argument against it amounts to "ick, Microsoft". Argue on technical merits, argue on design merits, argue on the simple fact that beagle fries CPUs, but let's at least keep the arguments rational. Please, I don't want to ever have to defend mono again.

Reply Score: 11

gilboa Member since:

Fedora != RedHat.

I can only assume that RedHat's lawyers decided that mono was safe for "free" distribution (Fedora), but not for commercial one (RHEL).

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 3