Summary: If Microsoft covers Mono, then it must be good for Microsoft
As we argued and showed earlier this week, Novell/Microsoft software mostly receives coverage from the Microsoft and Novell crowd [1, 2, 3]. This is definitely expected for Microsoft Moonlight, but here we see it happening for Mono as well, despite the fact that Microsoft evangelist Robert Scoble once wrote: “I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public.”
We still keep track of Mono coverage and we are not selective about it. Therefore, the following new ZDNet review of Mono 2.2 seems a little conspicuous. It seems a little misplaced. At the bottom, however, it clearly states:
Disclosure of industry affiliations: Justin James has a working arrangement with Microsoft to write an article for MSDN Magazine. He also has a contract with Spiceworks to write product buying guides. He is an employee of Levit & James, Inc. in a multi-disciplinary role that combines programming, network management, and systems administration and has been blogging at TechRepublic since 2005.
MSDN Magazine has just been hit by large-scale layoffs, so there will likely be an outpouring of Microsoft employee/writers who spread the company’s message outside literature which is explicitly and directly associated with the company. Another TechRepublic writer was criticised last year for promoting Mono as though it was everything there is to GNU/Linux. Microsoft’s internal evangelism presentations shed light on how the company intends to control developer and trade magazines, so it’s certainly something to watch out for.
Mono is trouble because, to quote further from Robert Scoble, Microsoft reserves the right to sue over Mono. Fortunately, however, Mono relief is still being offered to more GNOME users who embrace Gnote. It’s not an ultimate solution, but it’s a start. With Richard Stallman’s suggestion, I’ve invited Hubert to align his project with GNU. █