Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:29 UTC
Mono Project We've had a lot of debates recently on the merits - or dangers - of Mono. We've had troubles with how Microsoft views Mono and whether or not everyone is safe using it, but we also had a public back-and-forth among Debian maintainers. During all this, Richard Stallman remained pretty mum on the issue, today he broke the silence on the FSF website.
Thread beginning with comment 371045
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

" Why do you fail to mention the parts of Mono that are most decidely NOT ECMA standards of any kind? Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are all included in Mono. None of them are ECMA standards. Now there is also Moonlight, and support for Moonlight built in to Mono. Also most decidedly NOT any kind of an ECMA standard.
Because Stallman did not say ASP.Net, or ADO.NET, or Windows.forms, he said C#. If the bearded rabble rouser would have said "Depending on .Net or non-standardized C# libraries is bad", I'd be right there with you, but he said C#. Microsoft wouldn't sue over implementing the ISO, read those last 3 letters again as they are also in front of such languages as C and C++, and I don't think we are expecting AT&T to sue over implementations of C++, as it would mean patent nuclear war by all parties. C# and the CLI are good technology, and to get your panties all in a bunch because "OMG MICROSOFT" is stupid. "

The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.

The problem (or ambiguity) is C# and CLI. They do not have a similar encumberance, and on the surface it would seem to be OK to use them.

The problem in turn with that thinking is that the only way to use C# and CLI on Linux is via using Mono, and we already clearly established that we should not be using Mono (or even having it installed on our Linux system unused).

Ergo, as Stallman says, we are better off not using C# at all.

Edited 2009-07-01 03:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

which makes it anathma for freedom software.

"Freedom Software"? Nah. Doesn't really work, does it? Sounds stilted, retarded, fanatical. "Free Software" sounds like a cheap give-away of worthless crap. Freeware? Nope. More worthless crap. Try again.

Basing the name on the ambiguous and troublesome word "Free" is just a bad idea. A bad idea which has become an obsessive pursuit for some. It doesn't work. Try something completely different.

Edit: Those who would respond that the word "Free" is not ambiguous in a certain language will please do so in that language.

Edited 2009-07-01 03:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Libre software? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.


What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.
What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point? "

Say what?

C# and CLI are ECMA standards, other parts of Mono are not. Microsoft claims patents on some technologies which are part of Mono.

As an example, this page used to tell you the information that Windows forms was Microsoft proprietary technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms

Now I see that the page is mute on that topic. Interesting.

However, it is clear that this is not an ECMA standard, nor is there any mention of it being covered by an Open Specification promise (so you can be very assured that it isn't covered).

So, despite the removal of the clear statement on Wikipedia that this is Microsoft proprietary technology, it still remains so, without any doubt. It is not a secret.

Nor is it any secret that Mono contains an implementation of it.

All of this is not a secret in any way, it is public knowledge.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, then.

Edited 2009-07-01 04:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem in turn with that thinking is that the only way to use C# and CLI on Linux is via using Mono

No, this is not correct. It might seem that way, but there is the largely forgotten GNU Portable.NET. An ECMA implementation of .NET from the GNU project.

If RMS says that C# is dubious, he probably has valid reasons to assume that the ECMA/ISO specs aren't that free at all.

The problem with the FOSS .NET stuff is that by now several FOSS big wigs have said stuff about it, but the public at large has never seen one shred of the backing "evidence" on which they base their positions.

Reply Parent Score: 3