11.30.08
Mono Critique Goes a Long Way Back
It is worth correcting chronic claims that Boycott Novell is unique in its analysis, which is mostly inherited from concerns of others. Examples:
2004 (gnome.org): Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk
Argument In Brief
1. Microsoft’s C#/CLI licensing people, at high levels, are aware of us.
2. Microsoft can choose to do damaging things in the current C#/CLI licensing ambiguity.
3. Microsoft considers the free software / Linux community to be a major competitive threat
4. Microsoft does not “compete” gently
5. A + B + C + D = ?
2006 (harnvi.net): Who would use Mono now?
You can call it FUD, but for me it’s a question of investing my time and energy in technology that are and will be available on the platforms I use (Mac OS X and Linux). I don’t trust Microsoft and I don’t trust Novell anymore either. Who knows when Microsot will bring out it’s patents and kill Mono use outside of Novell? I think .NET is good if you want to develop for Windows only. For cross platform development I would not use it - I would go for Java.
The problem is not GNU/Linux which is not free (gratis). The key problem is a division between GNU/Linux that’s free and one that’s treated differently by Microsoft and its ally. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.
Needs Sunlight said,
November 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Again, what can be done about getting Mono boosters out of FOSS projects, especially ones like Ubuntu and Debian? Blacklisting them for good measure.
Shuttleworth seems rather cluefree on the situation. Red Hat seems to be leading, but the so-called Free distributions need to start following their own social guidelines.
David Mohring (NZheretic) said,
November 30, 2008 at 2:04 pm
MS .net vs Mono, Open Source
Wed Dec 25, 2002
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/12/25/213255.shtml
Roy Schestowitz said,
November 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Let’s quote from it:
“Mono also implements parts of .NET that have NOT been submitted to ECMA and ISO standards. Those parts of Mono lack even the protection for IP infringement with re-implementation that ISO documentation licensing implies.“
oiaohm said,
November 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Look at problem different. Novell is only a threat as long as there Distribution is important and Your Distributions are the only source of packages.
Linux Standard Base is almost to the point that Novell could ship mono to everyone directly. No distribution bias. This has a really bad unattended side effect. Everyone in effect becomes Novell users and protected by Novell’s agreement with Microsoft even if they are not using Novell built products.
The agreement with Novell does not allow third party shipping to provide the protection. Novell for once missed some fine print. Really rare event by there legal team.
Double sided sword. One side Novell can use it for there gain. Other side Novell can use it to kill MS patent rights against the Linux world out right. Simple reason MS will have no one to sue.
The AT&T problem all over again. Ie I have a patent I want to push I already sold it to AT&T and everyone out there has AT&T protection. Crap. Common Unix world problem. AT&T would buy the patents.