6 ms·

Once again the whole KILL MONO FUD was the actions of the Open Source Community in the last 5 years. I never understood how in the world they got this is a trap

by baldfat 13y ago

Once again the whole KILL MONO FUD was the actions of the Open Source Community in the last 5 years. I never understood how in the world they got this is a trap from everything that was happening. I don't agree with RMS many times but in this one way he was 100% wrong when he targeted mono.

acqq 13y ago
Microsoft would never make the moves it does now if not for being scared of becoming less relevant. Until they really make free enough licenses not only for the core stuff but for the crucial libraries nobody can expect to be off-the-hook of the traditional lock-in. And even if they do all that, it doesn't mean anybody was "wrong" only that the conditions are changing and allow reconsideration.
sparkie 13y ago
Microsoft originally only released a specification for V.2 of C# and the Common Language Runtime (ECMA-334 and ECMA-335) - attached to it a promise that they would not sue, iff the framework was "implemented in whole" - which was very vague in that it didn't specify what could be included or omitted in order to make it compatible with other platforms. The clause was obviously added to prevent fragmentation of the platform though - ensuring that it stayed compatible with MS's product, and thus they'd continue to hold control over it. C# 2.0 is nearly a decade old now - and mono certainly hasn't limited itself to it. Absolutely none of C# 3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 was ever released as an open specification or as open source software until now - yet these are the versions mono and everyone was using. So the "MONO FUD" was never actually FUD, it was legitimate concerns about the lack of openness of the technology. Those are no longer concerns (about this release version) - and we can be glad that RMS et al were "wrong" about this one (When they were in fact, absolutely right at the time.)
Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
I get pretty tired of writing a bunch of open-source C# code and getting flack for it. I'm glad there's finally no foothold left for the Mono FUD crowd.
bambam12897 13y ago
You honestly don't get it? I really like microsoft products and I use them every day, however the business model is too lock people in to their ecosystem so that you have to purchase licenses for their products. Mono clearly undermines that b/c it allows you to "easily" jump ship to a free platform. Unless I'm somehow completely misunderstanding their business model - killing Mono just makes business sense.
- msie 13y ago
  The KILL MONO FUD was coming from the Open Source community not from MS.
- bebop 13y ago
  I think you misunderstood the parent. They are talking about the open source community and RMS, not Microsoft trying to kill Mono.
  - bambam12897 13y ago
    I guess I left out the obvious connection. It's all part of the same thinking. RMS et al think - not unreasonably - think that this is Microsoft's business plan, so they really don't want the open source community investing their time on a platform they think will get clamped down to work only on a proprietary system.
- cwyers 13y ago
  Red Hat, for instance, makes a ton of money off the reverse model, where they let CentOS give away their core offering for free (heck, they're even paying people to work on CentOS now), and they make their money off clients who have money and are willing to exchange it for support and such for otherwise free offerings. There's really no reason Microsoft can't do something similar here (and they seem to be trending in that direction, although not quite to the extent Red Hat has) -- a mix of free-as-in-beer and open source tools for a "core" offering, so people can get into the Microsoft developer ecosystem, and a variety of paid offerings on top of that as their needs grow. And the extent of Microsoft's partnership with Xamarin shows just how much Microsoft is depending on Mono for their strategy, it'd be senseless at best to kill it.
melling 13y ago
Are you referring to this? It doesn't sound like he was trying to kill Mono, he just didn't want to depend on it because of the patent issue. https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono So, five years later Microsoft makes another step in the right direction, and you think he's wrong because he didn't want to risk building the open source environment around something that could go away with a simple threat. Btw, doesn't Microsoft make more money from Android patents than Microsoft phones? Microsoft does exercise their patents.
- scj 13y ago
  Not to mention that in 2009, when RMS wrote that, the TomTom lawsuit recently happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc.
- leoc 13y ago
  Speaking of which, have the patent concerns about ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms gone away yet?
  - Delmania 13y ago
    ASP.NET MVC and Web Forms are licensed Apache 2.0, as id the Entity Framework. I don't think ADO.NET, WinForms, or WPF will go the same route, and I also don't think they need to.
jordigh 13y ago
RMS is not part of the open source commuinty. He doesn't advocate for open source. He advocates for free software. Edit: why the downvotes? If I started a social movement and everyone associated me with a watered-down alternative that tries to silence my views, I would be a little miffed.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
Trust takes years to build, but moments to lose. MS has a long way to go. Not depending on them for anything is, has been, and will be a fine strategy.

by baldfat 13y ago

acqq 13y ago

Microsoft would never make the moves it does now if not for being scared of becoming less relevant. Until they really make free enough licenses not only for the core stuff but for the crucial libraries nobody can expect to be off-the-hook of the traditional lock-in. And even if they do all that, it doesn't mean anybody was "wrong" only that the conditions are changing and allow reconsideration.

sparkie 13y ago

Microsoft originally only released a specification for V.2 of C# and the Common Language Runtime (ECMA-334 and ECMA-335) - attached to it a promise that they would not sue, iff the framework was "implemented in whole" - which was very vague in that it didn't specify what could be included or omitted in order to make it compatible with other platforms. The clause was obviously added to prevent fragmentation of the platform though - ensuring that it stayed compatible with MS's product, and thus they'd continue to hold control over it. C# 2.0 is nearly a decade old now - and mono certainly hasn't limited itself to it. Absolutely none of C# 3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 was ever released as an open specification or as open source software until now - yet these are the versions mono and everyone was using. So the "MONO FUD" was never actually FUD, it was legitimate concerns about the lack of openness of the technology. Those are no longer concerns (about this release version) - and we can be glad that RMS et al were "wrong" about this one (When they were in fact, absolutely right at the time.)

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago

I get pretty tired of writing a bunch of open-source C# code and getting flack for it. I'm glad there's finally no foothold left for the Mono FUD crowd.

bambam12897 13y ago

You honestly don't get it? I really like microsoft products and I use them every day, however the business model is too lock people in to their ecosystem so that you have to purchase licenses for their products. Mono clearly undermines that b/c it allows you to "easily" jump ship to a free platform. Unless I'm somehow completely misunderstanding their business model - killing Mono just makes business sense.

msie 13y ago
The KILL MONO FUD was coming from the Open Source community not from MS.
bebop 13y ago
I think you misunderstood the parent. They are talking about the open source community and RMS, not Microsoft trying to kill Mono.
- bambam12897 13y ago
  I guess I left out the obvious connection. It's all part of the same thinking. RMS et al think - not unreasonably - think that this is Microsoft's business plan, so they really don't want the open source community investing their time on a platform they think will get clamped down to work only on a proprietary system.
cwyers 13y ago
Red Hat, for instance, makes a ton of money off the reverse model, where they let CentOS give away their core offering for free (heck, they're even paying people to work on CentOS now), and they make their money off clients who have money and are willing to exchange it for support and such for otherwise free offerings. There's really no reason Microsoft can't do something similar here (and they seem to be trending in that direction, although not quite to the extent Red Hat has) -- a mix of free-as-in-beer and open source tools for a "core" offering, so people can get into the Microsoft developer ecosystem, and a variety of paid offerings on top of that as their needs grow. And the extent of Microsoft's partnership with Xamarin shows just how much Microsoft is depending on Mono for their strategy, it'd be senseless at best to kill it.

melling 13y ago

Are you referring to this? It doesn't sound like he was trying to kill Mono, he just didn't want to depend on it because of the patent issue. https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono So, five years later Microsoft makes another step in the right direction, and you think he's wrong because he didn't want to risk building the open source environment around something that could go away with a simple threat. Btw, doesn't Microsoft make more money from Android patents than Microsoft phones? Microsoft does exercise their patents.

scj 13y ago
Not to mention that in 2009, when RMS wrote that, the TomTom lawsuit recently happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc.
leoc 13y ago
Speaking of which, have the patent concerns about ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms gone away yet?
- Delmania 13y ago
  ASP.NET MVC and Web Forms are licensed Apache 2.0, as id the Entity Framework. I don't think ADO.NET, WinForms, or WPF will go the same route, and I also don't think they need to.

jordigh 13y ago

RMS is not part of the open source commuinty. He doesn't advocate for open source. He advocates for free software. Edit: why the downvotes? If I started a social movement and everyone associated me with a watered-down alternative that tries to silence my views, I would be a little miffed.

mixmastamyk 13y ago

Trust takes years to build, but moments to lose. MS has a long way to go. Not depending on them for anything is, has been, and will be a fine strategy.