The Case For Supporting and Using Mono

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister argues in favor of Mono, asking those among the open source community who have 'variously described Mono as a trap, a kludge, or simply a waste of effort' to look past Miguel de Icaza and Mono's associations with Microsoft and give the open source implementation of .Net a second chance, as he himself has, having predicted Mono's demise at the hands of open source Java in 2006. Far from being just a clone of .Net for Linux, McAllister argues, Mono has been 'expanding its presence into exciting and unexpected new niches.' And for those who argue that 'developing open-source software based on Microsoft technologies is like walking into a lion's den,' McAllister suggests taking a look at the direction Mono is heading. The more Mono evolves, the less likely Microsoft is to use patent claims or some other dirty trick to bring down the platform."

Comments

Re:healthy distrust

[jmorris42]

> But they're going to go after Mono, right?

Your argument fails. Samba allows interoperability only. If Microsoft attacks it it hurts Microsoft. No same person would be installing Samba on a Linux/Unix or Mac network. Samba only exists because Microsoft's own products were too locked to support any cross platform standards. If Mono is kept to just allowing .net content to display in a browser plugin Microsoft won't attack; since that would again hurt them in that web delevopers would opt for Flash or Java to have cross platform support.

But let Miguel rewrite GNOME as a Mono project and they have a wonderful opportunity to cause mischief. First off they have an opportunity to collect a per install royalty to license their patents, a wet dream they have nursed for years. SCO v everybody else was a trial balloon to see if such a scheme was likely to fly in the courts. Second, as the gatekeepers of .net and C# they can ensure mono plays a never ending game of follow the leader.. into fresh patent tarpits.