Linked by David Adams on Fri 12th Jun 2009 14:55 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Mono Project A Mono developer responds to a request for "a calm presentation of why Mono is desirable, why it is not a threat, and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default" answering the three questions individually, then attempting to address general anti-Mono sentiment.
Thread beginning with comment 368169
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why bother?
by boblowski on Fri 12th Jun 2009 15:27 UTC in reply to "Why bother?"
Member since:

I totally have to agree with this reply. I've no problem with a better technology, but I've yet to see a convincing case for Mono.

And even though I'm by no means a legal expert, to me it seems the only people that do not perceive any legal problems with Mono, are those developing Mono. Even from Microsoft itself I haven't seen any clear statement or guarantees concerning the legal status of Mono.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Why bother?
by diegocg on Fri 12th Jun 2009 17:02 in reply to "RE: Why bother?"
diegocg Member since:

I've yet to see a convincing case for Mono.

I'd rewrite your sentence in a different way: I've yet to find interesting apps written in mono. Had I needed to install an app which used mono, I'd have installed it, even if I don't like it (I like objective-C and I don't have any objective-c programs installed. I mean, languages don't matter, it doesn't matter if the language is good or not, apps and frameworks is what matters).

It doesn't seem to be many mono killer apps (and yes, I've seen this: and this Monodevelop? I'd rather use eclipse. Tomboy? Its a f--king note-taking app, seriously, i couldn't care less.

The one remotely interesting mono apps for me seem to be:

-Banshee: it is nice....compared with the other crappy gnome players. But I got used to amarok long time ago when banshee didn't exist and I'm not going back.

-F-spot: I once tried to use it and it was buggy as hell, and I didn't need a photo manager anyway so i deleted it.

-Gnome-Do: I just don't care. Normal panels and app launchers do the job for me.

-Beagle...I don't use desktop search tools (I end up not using them and they eate resources). But when I tested it, it ate most of my RAM. No surprising that ubuntu ditched it.

Those are the most interesting apps...and they aren't very interesting at all (I mean, they are useful, but not critical - it's not goint to be the year of the linux desktop thanks to them. And I can easily find replacements of all of them that some times are even better - they are not "killer apps"). It's not surprising that distros are not deciding to take mono by default just for those .

And the same goes for all the .NET applications that I could use with mono. My XP system still works without .NET support installed. I don't know any interesting apps, and even if I did, they are propietary most of the time and they are windows-dependent in one or another way. As far as I know, all the interesting things are happening in the web, not in the desktop. And I have yet to find a site that requires me to use silverlight.

So, mono developers, here is a hint for you: Build interesting apps. Like...dunno...rewrite Evolution in C#? Or Gimp? Write an openoffice replacement? A IM app from the ground up, including network implementations? Hint: KDE has software equivalent to evolution, gimp and openoffice, and their own IM app (and they are quite good at it), and they wrote it ALL in old and dirty C++. And it works. So, if C# is supposed to be so powerful and so much better, why is that most of the apps written for mono are so uninteresting?

Edited 2009-06-12 17:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Why bother?
by FooBarWidget on Fri 12th Jun 2009 17:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother?"
FooBarWidget Member since:

Maybe you would use interesting Mono apps, but how many other people would as well? I've considered using C# and GTK to write desktop apps for Linux, but the main thing that puts me off is the thought that my users would not like the Mono dependency.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Why bother?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 12th Jun 2009 18:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Why bother?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

That is a good reply to the article. He states that the desktop team of ubuntu just focused on the best of breed applications. As a result, two of those happened to use Mono. Thus the mono run-time was included.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why bother?
by voidspace on Mon 15th Jun 2009 14:21 in reply to "RE: Why bother?"
voidspace Member since:

But Microsoft have made *explicit* statements about how they believe Linux is 'patent-encumbered'. If you are ready to ignore that as nonsense why state a higher case for Mono which Microsoft *need* and have never claimed is patent encumbered?

Reply Parent Score: 1