Announcement

**PhilT** · Nov 21, 2009, 08:23 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

I agree about the horror of having any M$ based (or supported) applications on Linux and have refused access to ANY mono applications on my machine (which means, for instance, "beagle" had to go because of all its mono dependencies even though I think it's better than "strigi" by a country mile.

But I did not realise that (theoretically, at least) a proprietary change in .NET could have such disastrous consequences. Can you explain why it would (or could) be so potentially terminal for ubuntu? I don't understand how that could happen. And what is Shuttleworth's explanation/rationalisation for inclusion of mono?

**GreyGeek** · Nov 21, 2009, 01:14 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Late last year and through the first half of this year Linux distros and forums were under a barrage of postings by "Linux" developers who wanted Linux distros to make MONO their desktop API. Proponents went so far as to label those who apposed Microsoft's API as the "faux" Linux community and those who wanted it as the "true" Linux community. However, since the Ubuntu Technical Board announcement of June 29th these stealth .NET programmers have stopped their attacks, for the most part. They think they've won, and only time will tell if they haven't.

If you checked the credentials of most of the main proponents, like I did, you would have found that they were primarily Windows .NET programmers working for Windows centric companies or writing Windows centric software with a horse in the .NET/MONO race. Even IBM promotes MONO! They see MONO as a way to use a single source code for an application which can then be compiled on both platforms with few or no changes. Linux ALREADY has a single source, cross platform development tool called Qt, called "Cute". Their problem with Qt is that it has a GPL form, which they don't want to use since they are writing proprietary apps, and a commercial form which they don't want to use because they don't want to pay a one-time $3,000 license fee for each developer, along with a $1,500/yr support contract per license, or even the lower cost bulk license rates. Strangely, these same developers see nothing wrong with paying Microsoft similarly priced license fees for an inferior product running on an inferior OS. Since they've already paid their license fees to Microsoft for .NET and other necessary development and deployment tools, with some SPLA licenses requiring monthly fees per cpu, they prefer MONO for Linux and Apple because it is free of licenses. They could care less that it traps Linux distros into Microsoft's API/control because their ONLY criteria is their own pocket. They could care less about the GPL and FOSS. What they will require of Linux users of their products, however, is that they agree to the installation of licensing tracking software like that sold by Desaware, which will require root access, because they don't want you hiding behind root to use more than one copy of their app! Imaging giving root access to MS technology on your Linux distro. Hello bot farm!

Let me point out that Microsoft has opened a two prong attack on Apple (and, previously on Linux as well) by virtue of MONO. When Ubuntu's Technical Board ruled, on June 29, 2009, that Ubuntu would become dependent on MONO (to leave no doubt -- if MONO is not installed then GNOME/Ubuntu doesn't work) that freed up de Icaza to attack Microsoft's other competitor, Apple. De Icaza also ported MONO to the Apple Mac OS X 10.3. One can even purchase iPhone Mono Headsets on Apple's iPhone Store.

A month ago de Icaza announced "MonoTouch". MonoTouch is a proprietary product announced by Novell which, for all practical purposes, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft. Since de Icaza works for Novell, using Novell as a proxy Microsoft can claim they have nothing to do with MONO's development or "Novell's" attack on Apple's iPhone market, even though they work hand in hand with de Icaza to port .NET. But, following the money and the results of the notorious "agreement" and the Royalty Payments by Novell to Microsoft for the "right" to sell Linux (SLES), one can see that the ultimate, true and sole beneficiary is only Microsoft. Now de Icaza is trying to encourage developers to use MonoTouch to write MONO based iPhone apps, which would cut into Apple's lucrative iPhone income stream. Since MONO is free and many of those MONO iPhone apps would be free, shareware or undersell Apple's offerings, the losses Apple could sustain are obvious. The draw for developers is that they can use MoonLight to port SilverLight/MoonLight based apps from Windows/Linux to iPhone. So far, Apple is disallowing SliverLight apps from being offered through their iPhone stores, and wisely so. Job's isn't stupid. He KNOWS what will happen if Microsoft's API become dominate on either the iPhone OR the Macs. But, by allowing MONO on the Mac OS X the Trojan Horse has been pulled through the gates into the city, just the SAME way Canonical allowed that horse into Ubuntu's city.

That brings us to the second prong of the attack -- subsequent proprietary incompatibility. By making SilverLight 4.0 dependent on Microsoft's proprietary Common Object Model (COM) Microsoft has effectively cut off any opportunity for developers using MONO and MonoTouch to implement cross-platform Mac and Windows Silverlight technology at the 4.0 level. What Microsoft is hoping for is developer pressure to persuade Apple to add SilverLight/MoonLight to its list of approved technologies used to develop apps for iStore sale.

So far, Apple is disallowing SilverLight apps at the iStore.

On Linux, de Icaza's team of developers provided two independent sets of libraries. One library set re-implements Microsoft's proprietary tools: ADO.NET, System.Windows.Forms, and ASP.NET, among others. These are the PATENTED libraries which are NOT under the ECMA 334 & 335. Strangely, Fedora 12 now ships with System.Windows.Forms as part of the ISO, a direct patent violation. de Icaza's team has also created a GPL set of libraries using a windowing technology called Gtk#, a set of C# bindings for the GTK+ toolkit, and assorted GNOME libraries. These are NOT patented. Currently, it is only because MONO uses the GTK dialog/windows API that it can present GUI apps like Beagle and the others.

One can ask another question about the wisdom of making Ubuntu dependent on MONO. Since MONO MUST use GTK# in order to allow MONO developers to create Windows and GUI dialogs for their MONO apps, and GTK does NOT need MONO to do the same, what is the motive behind forcing MONO on Ubuntu? I can see only one, and my conclusion is supported by a vote that also took place at the same June 29th UTB meeting -- the vote to establish a special structure, the Developer Applications Board, to process new developer applications. But, they already had a process to do that for the traditional Linux application developers. IMO, the "new developer" applications are those apps built using MONO and, more than likely, imports from Windows. By virtue of their own board, It appears that they will be getting special treatment. Having developed Ubuntu into the distro with the greatest number of users on the planet, Mark Shuttlesworth now has a need to monitize that effort to recoup his investment or even make a profit. He needs a way of selling proprietary apps on Ubuntu (that can also be sold to Windows users too) without having to pay license fees to do so.

**monte48lowes** · Nov 21, 2009, 02:42 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

I made a blog post about something similar a few weeks ago. Not the same, but similar. Microsoft, by extending the .NET into Linux via MONO, is removing the real purpose for open source software. That purpose, in my humble opinion, is to allow the programs to live on after they have been dropped by developers. Once the application being used fall under the MS umbrella, it will be very easy for MS to close the umbrella and move on. That would leave the option to move to MS or find another application that meets our needs.

I find it rather odd that KDE was shunned by the linux community just a few years ago because it used Qt, which at the time was not licensed under GPL. Now it's O.K. to fall under the influence of MS.

Mike

**GreyGeek** · Nov 21, 2009, 05:40 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

I forgot to add why I believe that the Ubuntu Technical Board ruled to make the Ubuntu desktop remix dependent on MONO.

Corporations do not pay $5K and up for a seat on the Ubuntu Advisory Committe just so they can whisper sweet little nothings into Shuttlesworth's ear from time to time. They EXPECT and most probably DEMAND certain concessions for those "donations". I believe that by making the ENTIRE Ubuntu distro, not just the desktop, dependent on MONO Shuttlesworth is making a guarantee to the corporations that they will always have a target market that can run their .NET/MONO based apps without needing any special treatment based on the distro.

Debian Squeeze will contain MONO and Tomboy by default. It is hard to get a clear statement from Debian about their desktops future dependency (or not) on MONO, but Np237 , a MONO fanboy and Debian developer, has a Q&A on his blog about Debian and MONO. Among other things he states:

Q: Will Debian squeeze include Mono and Tomboy in the default install?
A: Short answer: yes.

Q: Why not ship GNote instead by default?
A: GNote was written for bad reasons, without even respecting the GPL copyright requirements. But more importantly, its maintenance model is going to make it only follow behind the Tomboy lead, as any code changes in Tomboy will need to be translated to C++. It also supports less languages and less features. Furthermore, it was introduced in Debian for political reasons, by a maintainer who doesn’t use it and isn’t involved in GNOME maintenance.

Apparently, the FACT that MONO will always be BEHIND .NET in code changes is NOT a valid reason NOT to use MONO, but GNote being behind Tomboy IS a valid reason NOT to use GNote. Nice double standard there.

Now, as long as something like "sudo apt-get remove mono*" (or something like that) removes MONO from Ubuntu and does not disable the desktop, having MONO in the LiveCD will only mean that folks who do not want to have MONO on their install will have to remove 40-50 MB of MONO stuff and add back those apps they wanted but which were pushed off the LiveCD to make room for MONO.

HOWEVER, if removing MONO disables Ubuntu's desktop, or even Ubuntu itself, then those who want a MONO free Linux existence will have to move to another distro. AND, if MONO is required for background running of Ubuntu even though KDE4 is the desktop then folks who want a Microsoft free desktop will have to look for a distro that isn't based on or includes MONO dependencies ... one that is based on a distro sans MONO onto which KDE4 can be mounted. Do you know of any distro that uses the deb packaging system which is NOT based on Debian? I can't think of any off hand. So, moving from a Debian based system also means moving to an RPM based distro, UNLESS developers with a strong sense of the traditional GPL/FOSS ethic (those whom MONO fanbois call the "faux" Linux community) take the plunge and fork Debian and its packages.

Now, consider this... You've run Windows all your life and only recently added or moved to Linux. All those apps and utilties you are used to running, and/or for which there is no Linux equivalent that suits your eye, are suddenly available as a MONO apps (just they way they will be appearing on the Mac OS X). Some free for the download, some as shareware, some for a license fee, but available none the less. That will cause a couple of reactions. The first is for developers to drop C or C++ developed projects and move to MONO/.NET to get in on the action. I get a sense that most of the current MONO developers are really Windows developers looking to exploit Linux with their .NET applications. The second is that users of other distros could decide that running a "IP safe"/GPL licensed MONO app is just as good as using a similar app written using GTK, C, C++, Python, Java, etc..., so they jump to the MONO dependent app, which is running on the MONO dependent distro. Remember, a LOT of new immigrants have moved to Linux but they have not been in Linux long enough to understand the GPL or the FOSS community.

How will this harm Microsoft? It won't, for the same reasons that SilverLight 4 will draw drooling developers to it, just as MONO drew drooling developers to it. Developers who abandon their since of GPL ethic and have severe amnesia about the perils of usiing Microsoft software or "partnering" with Microsoft.

COM was added to SilverLight 4 for a reason. For those who forgot, it is the second part of the trilogy that for so long has aptly described, and continues to do so, Microsoft's policy toward FOSS -- EXTEND --, so that the third part may become a reality -- EXTINGUISHing of FOSS.

Choosing another distro may get problematic. Fedora developers expressed concern last July about MONO IP problems but their latest release:

The Fedora 12 Constantine GNOME Live CD is Mono free, but installing GNOME from the DVD pulls in not only Mono itself, but also support for Windows.Forms (mono-winforms), which is outside the ECMA standard (and not covered under Microsoft’s horribly inadequate Community Promise).

Fedora 12 having Windows.Forms is definately NOT under ECMA 334 & 335 so that is a deliberate IP violation!

I plan to stay with Kubuntu as long as I can safely remove MONO without harm to my KDE4 desktop. That may mean installing and running apps written ONLY with Qt. If removing MONO become problematic then I will seek out a distro the run KDE4 without the presence of MONO.

**Qqmike** · Nov 21, 2009, 06:23 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

The main thing I'd be immediately concerned about (apart from this WHOLE & ENTIRE deal w/MONO as per GG's explanation) would be security issues for K/Ubuntu (wrt malware/virus vulnerability). Kind of a naive statement as I really haven't until today paid any attention to this MONO stuff, but I think it deserves a folder in my FX Bookmarks.

**PhilT** · Nov 22, 2009, 07:24 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Thank you very much GreyGeek for your lucid explanations; I am so grateful for folks like yourself on this Forum who can explain the principles behind these things. Basically, people like me (who've been computer users since the Garden of Eden but whose programming skills are restricted to a bit of Basic or early Fortran or a bit of command-line Unix) are dependent upon more skilled colleagues to help us understand. I haven't really got a clue about the technicalities of C, C+, C++, Qt, GTK, .NET, mono, etc. etc, but I do know a little bit about the politics of power and the abuse of privilege and monopoly. Hence my passion for FOSS and the GPL. I do everything I can to promote Linux and Open Source, but it's all from a philosophical stand-point - the position of a user who has suffered the trials of M$ since MSDOS 5 through to abandoning WindowsXP for ever a few years ago.

The problem is, how to know if those at the top of the, say, Ubuntu or Fedora hierarchy are maintaining their FOSS credentials. Your post really worries me. I love the KDE/Linux environment; I recently had cause to "help" a neighbor whose Dell Windows laptop had crashed and would not boot and who had been told by an "expert" that he needed a new hard drive. A quick look with a GParted Live CD revealed a busted MBR and trashed file system - easily fixed; and another convert to Linux achieved!

But if the whole basis of our ethical stance is being undermined where do we go? How can we, simple, users fight to maintain a mono-free future. As I said above, I remove ALL mono applications because of the philosophical viewpoint. Others are less concerned, but is their position potentially undermining FOSS? Do we all need to become as devout as Richard Stallman?

I'm not qualified to judge.

**GreyGeek** · Nov 22, 2009, 12:42 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Thanks, Phil.

As you no doubt know, KDE was built using the Qt API (Application Program Interface). That tool has evolved over the last dozen years to become Qt4.x, which includes ALL the tools necessary to write any kind of application using a RAD (Rapid Application Development) environment. Qt includes the Qt-Designer, which is a world class GUI forms & dialogs creation app, Qt-Linguist, which is a translation creation tool, and Qt-Assistant, which is VERY extensive documentation and examples. While console applications can easily be created with Qt, developing with Qt does NOT require the use or knowledge of the CLI. Recently QtSoftware has also released a world class GUI (Graphical User Interface) IDE (Integrated Development Environment) called QtCreator, which integrates all of the Qt dev tools into one VERY powerful, integrated environment. I say world class because in my own experience it exceeds the capabilities of Visual Studio C++ 6.0, the programming tool I used at work before I retired. It is highly tuned to Qt and C++.

Even using VSC++ I found it faster and easier at work to boot to my Linux side and edit the source code using Kate and debug it using Kdbg against a PostgreSQL database because Kate, Kdbg and PostgreSQL worked considerably faster than VSC++ worked under XP. Compiling one of my principal apps under Linux took 3 to 5 minutes. Compiling the same source, exported to XP, took VSC++ 20 to 25 minutes. So, I'd get the changes working and tested on Linux and then compile it on Windows against our Oracle db. Compiler defines sensed the environment and compiled the correct code segments for the platform and the db.

I've used all the major dev tools & languages on Linux and Windows, and NONE OF THEM are faster or easier to use than Qt & QtCreator. There are no runtime/virtual machines necessary, and when compilation is complete you have a native Linux app. If compiled as a static app no libraries have to be pre-installed on the target Linux box. If compiled dynamically, the developer's deb package will install all the necessary dependencies. On most Linux applications the necessary utiltiy libraries and the gcc compiler are usually installed by default so that most Linux apps are compiled dynamically and packaged as such. One app I made compiles to a 2MB executable dynamically and 7.5MB statically. Dynamic apps makes the repository footprints much smaller, but static apps will run regardless of the libraries present on the target box.

Qt4 & QtCreator is entirely under the GPL and is free of any possible patent taint. The beauty and power of KDE 4.3.3 says volumes about the beauty and power of its underlying tool, Qt4.

I say all of that to counter a huge disinformation campaign by MONO supporters claiming that coding using MONO is faster, easier and more powerful than using any other dev tool on Linux. There is absolutely NO reason to make Microsoft's tools part of OR THE CONTROLLING API on the Linux desktop. In fact, as I will point out later, to adopt it would be a repeat of the powerplays which killed Unix and would mean the death of Linux and FOSS, which is what I believe the REAL purpose of MONO is. The Qt widget set brought us KDE4, more beautiful and powerful than VISTA and apparently what the win7 programmers used as a model, some would say. MONO is a "solution" to a non-existent problem. It is the solution to the problem of how to monitize Linux and FOSS, which can ONLY be done by destroying FOSS. Making .NET the default Linux desktop API is to destroy FOSS, if not Linux.

If you followed the attacks on Richard Stallman you will notice that most of them come from the MONO camp or they encourage a few feminists to pile on both Stallman and Shuttlesworth. Their hypocrisy is obvious when you Google some of their past postings and learn that they, themselves, wrote or spoke the same or similar jokes. The claim that Linux is "sexist" based on the claim that only 2% of Linux coders are women while 28% of corporate coders are women is also total nonsense. If 75% of Linux coders are corporate that should mean that 21% of the Linux coders should be women. Are corporations preventing women from coding on Linux? Obviously not. There are other factors in play here but sexism is not one of them.

The attacks on the Stallman, Shuttlesworth and the traditional Linux community (which the MONO fanbois call the "faux" Linux community while they anoint themselves as the "real" Linux community) are assaults on the Open Source foundations of Linux by forces of proprietary software wearing Penguin suites. Fresh out of High School I enrolled in the Barnes School of Business to study "data processing". Back then it was shuffling IBM format Hollerith punch cards with a 4,000 lb IBM 402 tabulator. That's where the term "heavy iron" came from. Just as I graduated in the spring of 1960, I heard news of a new IBM computer that replaced the 402 tabulator but still used punch cards and keyboards as input. Within 10 years Unix was created at AT&T. Unix became synonymous with "Open Systems", which used "open standards", the "open" part referring to royalty-free software. Stallman has frequently remarked about the period of the late 1970's and early 1980 In 1980. It was the time when two important events took place. Unix software stopped being open and the Unix wars began.

Wikipedia recounts: "Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of the first laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software on an older printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users when a printer was jammed. Not being able to add this feature to the Dover printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This one experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be free to modify the software they use."

He created the "copyleft" license to counter the use by proprietary software houses of the 1976 copyright act, and he started the GNU project because of the consequences of the Unix wars triggered by proprietary houses trying to lock computer users to their version of Unix.

Regardless if folks realise it or not, we are in another software war right now. A war waged by the most powerful corporation on the planet, aided by its paid surrogates, lackeys and fanbois, and a coroporation with the worst ethical and legal track record, against FOSS and Linux. The tool is MONO. It is the delivery vehicle designed to put the nose of the proprietary camel under the tent, to force entrance, to cause chaos, and finally take over control of the Linux desktop or destroy Linux and FOSS. And, just like in the 1980's it is all being done for the Buck.

Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to control the Linux kernel, only the Linux desktop. That's were all the money is because that is the focal point of all the USER applications. The Linux kernel and distro can remain the "free" part and that keeps Linus happy. The GTK# MONO bindings are only a temporary measure. When Windows.Forms can replace it GTK will be unnecessary and will be history, as will all of the apps written using it. The GTK will be kicked to the curb just the way GIMP (Graphic Image Management Program) , which was built using the GTK (which means Graphic Took Kit). A couple months ago I did a dependency check on the GTK libraries. Besides FireFox, Thunderbird, VLC and several other major applications, there were hundreds of lessor libraries and applications that depended on the GTK.

Just think of the thrill of surfing the web using a MONO import of Internet Explorer 6.0, or doing email with the MONO import of Exchange, or playing music with the MONO import of media player, or having the MONO import of the Validation Checker making sure all those MONO imports are legally licensed, which fails because you added a hard drive and changed your video card. Now you understand what Microsoft's plan is, which is that MONO will become their Tollbooth to the Linux desktop. You don't pay, you don't get access.

**PhilT** · Nov 22, 2009, 02:49 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Thanks again GG for more information

- and do I hope this thread is useful to others in clarifying these issues. I've been a great admirer of Richard Stallman for several years and have read a lot of his work; I think I have a pretty good understanding of his role in the "Unix Wars", the GNU and Copyleft, and the artificial intelligence lab, and I know lots of people try to discredit him. Having witnessed the ODF/OOXML saga over M$ bribes/attempts to get their lousy format approved, and reading your posts (and several others about MONO) I now think we should all have reason to be worried by this MONOlith trojan horse. I recently had cause to see a Windows7 laptop (colleague's) and it looked like a KDE4-clone/copy, so I understand your references to that.

If this is true, though, what is Mark Shuttleworth's justification? Do you think it is just money-based? I am reluctant to make that judgement because of all that he has done for the community. But, if your assertions are correct and there really is NO REASON not to remain with the very superior Qt4, then the evidence looks, well, strong ....

I repeat: what can we, simple users, do? Like yourself, if Ubuntu/Kubuntu becomes unusable without MONO then I'll move on; but that would be a real sadness. It's one thing to use the occasional proprietary piece of software by choice, but to have it thrust down your throat, No! What is the viewpoint of the Kubuntu developers? Do you know? Could we see a FOSS Debian fork?

Maybe the end of the world really is coming in 2012!!!

**GreyGeek** · Nov 22, 2009, 05:10 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Originally posted by PhilT

.....
If this is true, though, what is Mark Shuttleworth's justification? Do you think it is just money-based?
...
Maybe the end of the world really is coming in 2012!!!

Only in the movies. I've lived through a REAL, LIVE end of the world scenario and it brought your life to a TOTAL stop for over a week. I was a Sophomore in college and my fiancée and I were planning our December 16th marriage when Kennedy announced the October Missile Crisis. DEFCON went to 2, the only time in history, and gave good reason to wet one's pants. Wikipedia has an excellent report on it.

It was only years later, when the USSR failed and we had access to the KGB files, that we learned that the USSR had already installed and activated short range NUCLEAR tipped missiles in Cuba and only then did we realise how CLOSE we really came to a full scale nuclear exchange.

As a comparison, Chernobyl occurred 23 years ago. Here is the wikipedia entry for it:

Small amounts of ... Cs-137 were released into the environment during ... the Chernobyl disaster. As of 2005, Cs-137 is the principal source of radiation in the zone of alienation around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
....

The mean contamination of Cs-137 in Germany after Chernobyl was 2000-4000Bq/m², some parts in the south even 10 times higher. This corresponds to a contamination of 1mg of Cs-137 per square kilometer or around 500g Cs-137 deposited all over Germany.
...
Caesium-137 is water-soluble and extremely toxic in minute amounts. Once released into the environment, it remains present for many years as its radiological half-life is 30.07 years. It can cause cancer 10, 20 or 30 years from the time of ingestion, inhalation or absorption provided sufficient material enters the body.

Cs-137 has a half-life of 30.07 years. Even 10 half-lives later, or 300 years, in 2286 AD, 1 microgram of Cs-137 will still be in each sq m of that area of Eastern Europe causing Cancer deaths. Just imagine if, instead of a fission reactor melting down, there were multiple megaton nuclear explosions all over the USA, the USSR, Northern Europe, Cuba, Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, and several other countries. The radioactive fallout would have eventually blanketed the entire world with MUCH MORE radioactivity than that which polluted Chernobyl, leaving a few hardy bacteria and cockroaches as its only inheritors.

But, if some Muslim Jihadists who think that blowing up the world will take them to paradise where they can have sex with 72 virgins have their way, maybe 2012 isn't that far off.

Scary.

**claydoh** · Nov 22, 2009, 08:42 PM

Re: Glimps into the future?

I have carefully and actively stayed out of any mono debates, and I do sincerely hope that the overly zealous attacks, accusations, and flames from both sides of the issue remain far far away from KubuntuForums.

But I do have one question that I have not seen answered much for me is that as mono is under the gpl/lgpl/mit licenses, how would any future patent threat affect linux users? I mean how would Ubuntu users' system be affected? Would the open-licensed parts affected simply need to be re-written? or would something else have to happen?

**GreyGeek** · Nov 23, 2009, 01:10 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

Originally posted by claydoh

....
But I do have one question that I have not seen answered much for me is that as mono is under the gpl/lgpl/mit licenses, how would any future patent threat affect linux users? I mean how would Ubuntu users' system be affected? Would the open-licensed parts affected simply need to be re-written? or would something else have to happen?

ONLY parts MONO under the ECMA 334 & 335 "standard", about which Microsoft issued a "Community Promise" not to sue those who use them, are the CLI and C# related items. They can be be freely used. However, the patented parts of .NET, like System.LINQ, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, WinForms and other GUI libraries and tools -- which are necessary to build the GUI components of .NET apps -- have been illegally ported to MONO. In fact, HUGE parts of .NET are not in the ECMA release, not in MONO, and are covered by patents.

The question you raise about how MONO would affect Ubuntu users should be expanded to ask "how will it affect GNOME users?" This question was answered two years ago:

A couple of years back, the Gnome desktop environment developers have taken the decision to reengineer the Gnome desktop around the Mono framework. This decision has mainly been influenced by the main Mono developer Miguel de Icaza, who is a very vocal employee of Novell. (This is no surprise -- de Icaza created GNOME -GG) Recent developments thus request us to recall the pieces of the puzzle in order to understand what might really be going on.

Reasonable doubt has been raised to whether or not Mono can actually be deployed freely. Mono itself is basically a free and halfway portable implementation of the .NET framework developed by Microsoft. However, the .NET framework itself is subject to a large amount of software patents, which cover the concepts used within the .NET framework. Since these are concepts and not individual implementations (which are covered by Copyright, which is certainly untouched by a reimplementation), they most likely also apply to the Mono framework.

To Novell itself, Icazas employer, this is not a significant problem, since Novell has closed a patent deal with Microsoft not so long ago which undoubtedly also covers the .NET patents. However, all conventional Linux and Open Source vendors would not be able to distribute Gnome as it would be covered by the .NET patents Microsoft owns.

This amounts to an easy way for Novell to effectively lock in Gnome users to their own products. Gnome would no longer be a real Free Software project, even though the code remains freely available. It is expected that this type of patent issues will be raised many times, causing severe damage to the economy with the time. The only way of mitigation will be a transatlantic patent agreement which clarifies Art. 52 EPC: Software is not patentable.

The history of the GTK is here.

The history of GNOME is here.

The presence of Winforms in Ubuntu was flagged as a bug in the Ubuntu launchpad bugzilla and removed from Jaunty on Sept 15, 2009.

To fill the gap de Icaza created MONO bindings to the GUI components of the GTK widget set. Those bindings are called GTK#, or GTKSharp. One can build GUI apps using only the GTK, but cannot build GUI apps using ONLY MONO. Therefore, MONO is currently unnecessary for any kind of application development. However, as the first citation reported, there are plans afoot to make GNOME dependent on MONO. In fact, this is how Ubuntu will be made dependent on MONO, because Ubuntu depends on GNOME and GNOME was built with the GTK+. If GNOME is rebuilt using C# and some form of MONO Winforms then the GTK+, AND ALL THE APPS BUILT WITH IT, will be rewritten as MONO apps or they will die if someone doesn't fork the GTK+ and those apps. That they can port Winforms to MONO legally remains to be seen, as the citation also points out.

Even IF Microsoft relents and places their patented components of .NET under the ECMA so de Icaza can copy them into MONO one fact exists and one condition will arise, and they are the reason for my initial post:

1) MONO will ALWAYS be behind .NET in the development cycle.
2) Microsoft can, just like they did this last week with SilverLight 4, release an "enhancement" of .NET which they WILL NOT release under the ECMA, thus putting MONO users on the same treadmill that Microsoft put IBM on when Windows and OS/2 fought it out. You remember how that ended, don't you?

Gnote was hastily created as a visual look & feel copy of Tomboy on the false hope that it would replace Tomboy and allow GIMP to be restored to the Ubuntu iso. A MONO supporter criticised GNote, claiming as one of its weakness that it would always be behind Tomboy's development and hence wasn't worthy to replace Tomboy. If that is true for GNote then it is also true for MONO, which will FOREVER be behind .NET. And, even though the developer of GNote can ALWAYS copy what ever Tomboy developers add to Tomboy, MONO developers CANNOT always add what ever Microsoft adds to .NET, because of that simple little matter of patents.

Is the GUI components copied over from .NET still patent risks? Apparently de Icaza thinks so. In his blog of July 6, 2009, even though he bragged about Microsoft's "community promise", he states:

Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct.

In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others.

Astute readers will also remember that the patent problem was pointed out to de Icaza FIVE years ago. He said his crew was working on "separating" the patented parts out back then. Apparently they weren't. Are they really going to do it now?

Astute readers will also note that just because someone claims they can implement a patented technology it doesn't mean that they can legally do so, or if they do, that the patent holder will not sue for infringement. They also know that the Community Promise applies only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the specification. Partial implementations are not covered. Who determines if an app is not "fully conforming"? Take a guess.

Most of the talkbacks to the 7/6/09 blog are by Windows fanbois, as anyone can plainly tell. One person asked:

But, this is Microsoft we're talking about, they can just go off and write their code to any standard they want, or even to an undocumented (at least to the public) standard, and make your code incompatible. I think Mono is a great achievement, and that .Net is an interesting programing environment. But, MS has in the past f**ked over their partners to benefit themselves, and changed API to benefit themselves. What's to stop them from doing to the same to Mono and other Open Source implementations?

To which a MONO fanboi replied:

Well:

If they are not careful, doing things like (that) can break their cross-platform .Net and Silverlight strategy. Having a cross-platform runtime provides them something important to compete with Java.

But, what was the point of my original post? That Microsoft introduced COM dependencies into SilverLight 4.0 and COM is patented, so Microsoft DID break their cross-platform strategy with Apple.

All this fuss about MONO when Qt is a PERFECT GUI RAD widget set, it is totally under the GPL and patent free, and will always be, doesn't have to play catchup to its proprietary version because they are ALWAYS one and the same, and KDE 4.3.3 is proof of what can be done with it. KDE 4.0 was released Jan 11, 2008. KDE 4.3.3 was recently released.
Microsoft is on the verge of releasing .NET 4.0. MONO has been under development for about 10 years and is at 2.4.6. No plans have been announced for when MONO 3.0 ("Oliver") will be released, so you can well imagine how far down the road MONO 4.0 is. Apparently not far enough to disqualify MONO as a replacement for GIMP.

And, the London Stock Market fiasco is proof of what can be done with .NET.

**PhilT** · Nov 23, 2009, 06:52 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

This is getting more serious by the day >

, but maybe not quite so serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis (I remember that well, and demonstrated as a pacifist in protests at the time here in the UK) or Chernobyl (been there, and have been involved in developing radioactive clean-up technologies). But whereas I agree with Claydoh that these forums should remain free of flame wars it's surely important that "normal" users are informed about the dangers (apparent, likely, possible, or, whatever) to FOSS by such things as changing GTK to MONO in Ubuntu.

Hence I think we should be very glad that GG has taken the trouble to explain. I was going to post a question about the "free" credentials and the license details of MONO but Claydoh's question preempted mine and GG's answer is pretty clear.

The problem I have is that I'm too ignorant of the minutiae of all these programming languages and the fine detail and nuances which give life to patents to be able to get into the mind set of the developers. Clearly Shuttleworth is a very clever man, and obviously de Icaza is a brilliant programmer/developer. Do they know something we don't about how to avoid the patent trap? Or are they double agents? It certainly looks (from GG's explanations and all the embedded linked articles) that GNOME could be slipping into dangerous and murky waters. I know one of articles about Shuttleworth, Gnome and MONO was written on April Fools Day but apparently it wasn't a joke.

I remain worried about what we can do - as Kubuntu users - to protect our freedom from what looks increasingly like a potentially dangerous patent trap in GNOME/Ubuntu. Does anybody know what the Kubuntu developers think about it? How absolutely dependent is/will be Kubuntu on Ubuntu mono-linked libraries? Apparently not dependent at present (because I have NO mono libraries on my Kubuntu box and it runs fine).

But will that necessarily change if Ubuntu continues with MONO?

**Qqmike** · Nov 23, 2009, 07:19 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

I think GG's topic is relevant and useful here.
PhilT's last paragraph states very well the issue we should be interested in.

**claydoh** · Nov 23, 2009, 09:36 AM

Re: Glimps into the future?

My question unfortunately has not really been answered. How does this affect the actual end-users' use of their computers? If there is eventually some patent-related controversy or dilemma, the various distros could simply pack up the bad bits and replace them - or users can go to a completely different distro altogether. Or am I missing something else completely?

This is why I have generally stayed out of this debate - no one from either partisan side has really answered this to my satisfaction. One side has a tendency to brush it off and shrug it away completely, while the other has a tendency to go on and on (and on), quoting this and that and claiming the World As We Know It will soon be over. Usually with a shrill tone.

(I want to make it 100% clear I do not mean or intend to include GG in this generalization at all)

Too much like US politics at the moment, the actual truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Announcement

Glimps into the future?

Glimps into the future?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment