This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2009/06/12/mono-vs-java-video/.
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Java, KDE, Kernel, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, SUN, Videos at 7:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Update (21/09/09): Huey adds that his criticism of Mono is purely technical and that he never met de Icaza.
Summary: Better to use closed-source Java than to be a prisoner of Redmond; ongoing dialogues about Mono
WHILE LOOKING for some daily videos we found the following gem.
=> ↺
Huey calls Miguel “misguided” (maybe guided by Microsoft), having personally met him already [see update at the top]. He also adds that Java is a lot better than .NET and Mono. That was in 2004, a couple of years before Java was on route to becoming Free software (GPLv2).
Check out this new massive thread which mostly voices opposition to Mono (amongst Linux Today’s readership). In one comment, however, Richard Dale states:
=> ↺ this new massive thread | ↺ states
Well Arno Rehn and myself have been quietly working on Qt/KDE Qyoto and Kimono C# bindings for some time and they work pretty well, although I don’t think we done enough to publicize them yet. If someone comes along and writes apps in C# which happen to be as good as Tomboy and F-Spot, and they get included in distributions like Kubuntu, then maybe you’ll have to move somewhere other than KDE.As far as I know in Gnome there are only applications written using Mono/GTK#. That is very different to writing parts of the infrastructure of Gnome using Mono. It isn’t up to me to decide about what Gnome does, but as far as KDE is concerned there is absolutely zero chance of us basing any infrastructure on Mono. We’re only interested in allowing people to write Qt and KDE applications, plugins and Plasma applets in what some people might think is a tidier language than C++.
Dale is one among those who put Mono bindings in KDE [1, 2, 3, 4]. Arno Rehn is the other [1, 2].
Carla Schroder, the managing editor of Linux Today, has invited more feedback regarding Mono and she personally adds:
=> ↺ invited more feedback regarding Mono | ↺ personally adds
The issue is not whether Mono should be available at all, but included in the default Ubuntu image. The pro-Mono comments here are completely ignoring that and instead launching into rah-rah reasons why nobody should object to Mono. (Lotsa luck.) Removing it from the default Ubuntu image and keeping it easily available in the repos is a sensible and simple solution. Thousands of packages do not make it into the default Ubuntu image; it’s not a badge of shame, and I don’t see the sense in including the fat Mono runtime in the scarce real estate of a CD image just to support a few small specialty apps.
One of our readers will explore this issue in more details as well.
=> ↺ will explore this issue in more details as well
I’m planning to do another (different) attempt to get the conversation right in the next weeks, either.
There are patterns of FUD that are used to actually defend Mono. How about this one for a familiar pattern?
=> ↺ this one for a familiar pattern
DotGNU? They suffer from the same problem. DotGNU only gets mentioned by Mono people, apart from when they’re FUDing them, when they want to deflect some attention away from Mono.
Bernard Swiss argues:
=> ↺ argues
There seems to be some real major, FUD-laced campaigns under way, lately, pushing Mono and denigrating ODF. To to be fair, many participants appear to be absolutely genuine, but there also seems to be some significant upper-tier instigation/coordination “fanning the flames”, so to speak.
Luckily, Mononono is making its entry into Ubuntu. █
=> ↺ Mononono is making its entry into Ubuntu
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).