4 ms·

What exactly was RMS wrong about? MS didn't try to sue Mono out of existence, but they could have. If Mono had become a critical part of the Linux world, they v

What exactly was RMS wrong about? MS didn't try to sue Mono out of existence, but they could have. If Mono had become a critical part of the Linux world, they very well might have. If MS didn't want the free software community to be wary of that threat, they could have made legally binding promises not to sue over patents (no, making something an "open standard" does not do that [1]). Failing that, RMS seems correct that it would have been dangerous to depend too greatly on technology that could be clearly be thwarted by lawsuits from MS. Ironically, if MS had encouraged the free software community to use C# back then, MS would probably be better off today. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered_by_patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_standards_covered...

baldfat 11y ago
He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. RMS sees issues with many licenses and discourages many languages. This was an attack on a language which was MUCH less than others in terms of concerns, but the community attacked mono with such fervor. Java - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html X Windows trap - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html How about javascript https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. I find that the reason mono was so focused was that it came from Microsoft. It was a witch hunt that was guided by a conspiracy theory. Answers by Mono Project http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-m...
- streptomycin 11y ago
  He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. Just because an attack never happened doesn't mean there was no strategy. In part due to RMS's effort, there was basically nothing for MS to attack. And even if there really was no strategy, there very clearly could have been. You can't fault RMS for not being a mindreader. That's why lawyers and contracts exist - if MS didn't want it to look like they were scheming, they very easily could have done that. Like Sun did with Java, as described at the top of the Java link you posted. There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. Please read the article you linked to and tell me what it has to do with GNOME using JavaScript (hint: nothing, it's about JS in the browser). And from that last link: In our opinion, nothing about Mono is different than other projects like Samba or Wine, that also substantially reproduce a Microsoft created technology or protocol. RMS would be horrified if GNOME decided to write some core apps using Wine. But... they didn't. If they did, there would be an outcry even bigger than the one against Mono. RMS's problem isn't Mono (as described in your original link, he thinks it's good to have a free implementation of C#), it's relying on it for important applications. I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but honestly, you seem to be more concerned with slinging mud at RMS than understanding the issues.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    First: Never took anything you said as a personal attack. These are the conversations I like to have. Someone with a different perspective. Secondly yes I know that I was stretching the javascript to Gnome so I take that as a knock on my argument. No my concern is not mud slinging at RMS. I really do appreciate him and I am glad he was born and is involved in our community. My concern is the use of FUD. This is the very definition of FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. But placing a bit of fear and it could happen caused this uproar. Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C# and mono?
    - streptomycin 11y ago
      It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. I guess the sticking point is that I don't see how it couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. X exists. X is patented. Making a clone of X and using that clone in critical technologies is a risky strategy, unless you get an explicit legal guarantee that you won't be sued. It happened to C#, it happened to MP3, it happened to H.264. All very similar situations. Now, you may say that C# is different than MP3 or H.264 because you personally reviewed MS's patents and you personally guarantee that none of them actually apply to Mono, so we're all in the clear. That is awesome, because as most software developers are not patent lawyers, we lack the ability to do that ourselves. We just know that some people said it's a problem, others said it's not, and MS itself was silent for quite some time. But it's not the same as an affirmative statement from MS saying they're not going to sue other C# implementations for patent infringement. You are right that MS may have gotten a bit more attention than another company would have in the same situation. If so, it can be reasonably explained by that old "fool me once" quote. But even so, the whole situation could have been diffused by MS if they wanted to. Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C# and mono? They seem to have. To be honest I haven't been following the developments of the past couple years in great detail because it seems like the "C# on Linux" ship has already sailed. And that's a damn shame. I think C# is a great language. It fits a niche that still isn't really filled in the Linux ecosystem (although that niche is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on and other technologies develop).

baldfat 11y ago

He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. RMS sees issues with many licenses and discourages many languages. This was an attack on a language which was MUCH less than others in terms of concerns, but the community attacked mono with such fervor. Java - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html X Windows trap - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html How about javascript https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. I find that the reason mono was so focused was that it came from Microsoft. It was a witch hunt that was guided by a conspiracy theory. Answers by Mono Project http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-mono/ http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/concerns-about-m...

streptomycin 11y ago
He was wrong in seeing this as a hidden attack strategy by MS. Just because an attack never happened doesn't mean there was no strategy. In part due to RMS's effort, there was basically nothing for MS to attack. And even if there really was no strategy, there very clearly could have been. You can't fault RMS for not being a mindreader. That's why lawyers and contracts exist - if MS didn't want it to look like they were scheming, they very easily could have done that. Like Sun did with Java, as described at the top of the Java link you posted. There are many projects that use javascript in Linux. Gnome has made javascript the default configuration language. Please read the article you linked to and tell me what it has to do with GNOME using JavaScript (hint: nothing, it's about JS in the browser). And from that last link: In our opinion, nothing about Mono is different than other projects like Samba or Wine, that also substantially reproduce a Microsoft created technology or protocol. RMS would be horrified if GNOME decided to write some core apps using Wine. But... they didn't. If they did, there would be an outcry even bigger than the one against Mono. RMS's problem isn't Mono (as described in your original link, he thinks it's good to have a free implementation of C#), it's relying on it for important applications. I apologize if this comes off as a personal attack, but honestly, you seem to be more concerned with slinging mud at RMS than understanding the issues.
- baldfat 11y ago
  First: Never took anything you said as a personal attack. These are the conversations I like to have. Someone with a different perspective. Secondly yes I know that I was stretching the javascript to Gnome so I take that as a knock on my argument. No my concern is not mud slinging at RMS. I really do appreciate him and I am glad he was born and is involved in our community. My concern is the use of FUD. This is the very definition of FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. But placing a bit of fear and it could happen caused this uproar. Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C# and mono?
  - streptomycin 11y ago
    It was a FUD attack on something that really couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. I guess the sticking point is that I don't see how it couldn't have been a trap legally or intellectually. X exists. X is patented. Making a clone of X and using that clone in critical technologies is a risky strategy, unless you get an explicit legal guarantee that you won't be sued. It happened to C#, it happened to MP3, it happened to H.264. All very similar situations. Now, you may say that C# is different than MP3 or H.264 because you personally reviewed MS's patents and you personally guarantee that none of them actually apply to Mono, so we're all in the clear. That is awesome, because as most software developers are not patent lawyers, we lack the ability to do that ourselves. We just know that some people said it's a problem, others said it's not, and MS itself was silent for quite some time. But it's not the same as an affirmative statement from MS saying they're not going to sue other C# implementations for patent infringement. You are right that MS may have gotten a bit more attention than another company would have in the same situation. If so, it can be reasonably explained by that old "fool me once" quote. But even so, the whole situation could have been diffused by MS if they wanted to. Now we are looking 6 years later and well things have really opened up in C# and mono? They seem to have. To be honest I haven't been following the developments of the past couple years in great detail because it seems like the "C# on Linux" ship has already sailed. And that's a damn shame. I think C# is a great language. It fits a niche that still isn't really filled in the Linux ecosystem (although that niche is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on and other technologies develop).