Mono 4.0.0 Release Notes
mono-project.com
mono-project.com
So many projects in Linux we abandoned by users and people made clones of working software. Such wasted time and such a negative turn in our community.
Here is RMS fiurst post on Mono and C# - https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
“[...] we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it’s dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono.”
–Richard Stallman
I am glad that RMS is an advocate for Free Software and we certainly have been helped by his strong convictions. I think he was wrong with Mono and hurt specifically GNU/Linux (For RMS' sake) by limiting the use of a language due to pressure against developers using it. The fight was won and mono projects were dropped by distros.
P.S. Long time OpenSUSE user which was also strongly discouraged by the community due to Novell's and Microsoft's relationship and agreements.
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...
Java - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
X Windows trap - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html
How about javascript 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-m...
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.
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?
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).
So I really would not call the reaction FUD.
Also, adding my personal experience from that period, I'd say that many Linux desktop users, myself included, were not interested in adding mono as another dependency to the stack, especially to run three applications: a note-taking application (tomboy), photo management (f-spot) or the banshee music player(which, I'm sorry to say, was one of the most crash-happy pieces of gnome). Samba and ffmpeg (well, the patented parts thereof) were never meant to be building blocks on which to write a lot free software, they are ways to ensure compatibility with existing closed solutions. I have some simpathy for de Icaza's idea that, since C# is a nice programming language, people should be encouraged and helped to use it, but the combination of patents' threat and frankly the "let's just put it in gnome!" approach doomed the effort. Also, in hindsight, mono would have (has?) worked better in the entreprise sector, rather than in desktop environment (Ruby is about as open as it gets, but it is not used for DE's stuff, execpt YAST2 I think). Hopefully now that most of the dotnet stack is open (except the bits that do depend on windows e.g. WindowsForm, if I'm not mistaken) we'll see a rebirth of interest.
For the last decade or so, the vast majority of FUD has come from within the FOSS community, who seem to be celebrating these dirty tactics. It's really soured me on the FOSS community in general.
That said, some of us tried to point out that it was FUD at the time. Even when MS-PL projects came out, it was attacked as FUD... today with MIT projects, they are attacked as FUD for not containing the extra provisions that MS-PL provided regarding patents. It's almost a no-win situation. For me, my largest concerns are cost and lock-in, in that order...
I am pragmatic about it and do pay for some things, but will usually prefer an open (floss) solution. It really depends. All of that said, I don't think it was meant as a dirty tactic so much as a stance on RMS' somewhat religious views regarding software.
And even now Microsoft is threatening Android phone makers for things such as the FAT patent. Microsoft is extracting more money from Android through extortion than what they earn from Windows Phone. The new Microsoft that people are talking about apparently has a personality disorder, since they are also a patents troll.
So no, it wasn't a witch hunt.
http://www.mono-project.com/docs/getting-started/install/lin...
For some reason apt-get wouldn't automatically install it, despite it being a dependency.
http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/4.0.0/#...
of note (to me) is the replacement of significant mono modules with the MS equivalents; Decimal, LINQ, Threading.Tasks, and on - a list that looks like what some people might call the 'tricky bits' ...
Check out each card for hints as to what is yet to come: "The Mono Core Runtime basically will implement the same interface that the .NET Core runtime will. Allowing Mono to be deployed alongside the application and shipping only with a very limited set of assemblies that integrate the VM with the operating system."