Why mono is good

We and the members of the social network open-life.org decided to translate the article by Jo Shields (Jo Shields) “Here we go again - why Mono doesn't suck” . The result was an article "Why Mono is Good." A copy of this translation can be found here: Why Mono is good - open-life.org

Note: If anyone wants to invite on open-life.org - knock on the PM

I am a member of the Debian Mono Group, the Debian CLI Applications Team, and the Debian CLI Libraries Team. And already for a year I have been working on maintaining the Mono project packages and programs that use it in Ubuntu (and Debian). I am well aware of the heated debates, threats and subsequent transitions to the individual, and now I accept your "challenge." In this article, I speak on my own behalf - not from the Debian project, not from Ubuntu, not from Mono, and not because my boss asked me to.

You wanted “an objective explanation of how good Mono is, why it does not pose a threat, and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default”? - I will answer these 3 questions in turn, then I will offer a general conclusion to this article, as well as to the wider Anti-Mono movement. This message is signed by GPG (comment of the translator: GPG = GNU Privacy Guard is a free alternative to the PGP cryptographic software package) to confirm that it has been published without changes. The original text is available at retro.apebox.org/herewegoagain.txt so that everyone can verify its authenticity independently.

Why is mono good?
')
The answer depends on who the question was asked.
Asking this question to simple users, you will hear “nothing” in response, as well as for the Scheme compiler or LOLCODE interpreter.
But by asking the same question to programmers, you will receive many completely different answers. Mono provides a well-balanced integrated system that allows you to develop open source software quickly, efficiently and productively. By the word “balanced,” I mean impartiality in prioritizing the features of a programming language — the use of RAM, the speed of execution, the availability of libraries, and much more — it is quite good for EVERYTHING. In terms of speed, Mono is much faster than Python - up to a difference of several hundred times in the results of some tests; takes less memory when compared to Java programs; contains modern features like a garbage collector, which makes writing code very easy compared to malloc () - lucky C and C ++. This is a well balanced system. Thus, for those who are going to write programs for the open source environment, it is a reasonable choice of the basis for development. Some programs that were created relatively recently - for example, GNOME Do - fully use the functionality of the Mono platform, along with the ability to write very quickly and simply, in comparison with the chasing SIGSEGV for human errors that are inevitable when developing in C. avoid absolute horror in the support of a large C code GUI-base (see Evolution).
Further, Mono as a whole allows easier migration, both for developers and users, with the usual CLR frameworks like Microsoft .NET. Students studying Visual Studio .NET at universities can use their skills and directly apply them to create and improve free software in new Ubuntu distributions without having to learn a new language. Commercial enterprises that have invested in .NET-based applications may think about replacing their servers and desktops with free software. Although providing compatibility with .NET has always been a secondary goal, it has always been very popular and has encouraged various people to contribute to the improvement of Mono.
However, it is worth noting that this use case (migration from the Windows operating system) is not a reason for including Mono in standard distributions (more so, for example, than Wine). Indeed, the libraries required for most Microsoft.NET applications are excluded from the Ubuntu distribution due to the lack of need for them.

Why is Mono not dangerous?

This question generates a lot of useless, but heated disputes, although it does not hurt you and your web page, and you will get a good income. Mono is not dangerous, since there are no legal restrictions. Many people spend hours, if not days and weeks, trying to explain it. Well, I will try to do it again. There are many reasons to fully explain this statement, and now we will consider them separately.

• Mono is not the result of any business between Novell and Microsoft. It was created 4 years before that unpleasant transaction. He was not discussed in this case professionally, he was not mentioned at all (as well as other programs). This is important to note.
• Mono is under the auspices of the OIN organization, as are most free applications. Patent attacks against Mono carry the same risk to attackers as attacks against other OIN participants. Attacks against Mono are fraught with patent "cold war", which Microsoft can not win. Such actions will damage their business and lead to the loss of a large amount of money.
• Mono, as already mentioned, implements the international standard - albeit from a recognized monopolist. If this is a problem, then why do people use C, the standard from another monopolist - AT & T? Mono, which was also mentioned, is more perfect and is a free replacement for proprietary proposals. If this is a problem, why do people use GNU (which, adding improvements, has become a free replacement for proprietary UNIX)?
• Regardless of whether there are any patents, Mono is “covered” by the ECMA 334 and 335 standards, if all such patents are valid (this is often hidden), the fact that the statements are made publicly, supporting the idea of ​​licensing without license fees as such, reduces the financial impact of such a violation to zero. If any corporation has a “non-discriminatory” license to use the patents and does not pay for them, then any changes will become discrimination (a break in the signed terms regarding the licensed patent), otherwise these patents lose any financial value. Although, they can still carry intangible value (for example, in protection against claims related to these patents), i.e. without making them “free for all” in any sense.
• Mono will not become inoperative due to incompatible changes in Microsoft .NET for two reasons. First, because of such changes, each existing program based on .NET would be disrupted (in fact, if this happens, then the best option for users would be to launch applications using Mono). Secondly, Microsoft.NET support is a secondary goal of the Mono project. If Microsoft changes something in .NET 5.0 code, then this will not prevent Banshee or GNOME from compiling and running the application on other systems, like Ubuntu.
• The absence of “patent protection” is not equal to “patent infringement”. If I ask someone to pay for my promise not to pursue them for using my patents, they will accept my offer, but with no guarantee that I will ever be able to sell them something good — just what they are willing to buy. . If Jim buys protection from any of my patents, it does not mean that he is encroaching on something concrete - just as if Ted does the same thing, it does not mean that he does not violate anything else. If your home insurance includes flood protection, this does not mean that your home will be flooded, and unpaid insurance will not mean the opposite.
• Patents covering the implementation of specific details of the project can not destroy it - an example is Freetype. Apple created several patent problems for Freetype developers, “closing” hints to TrueType fonts. Please note that Freetype exists to this day - this is because the METHOD Apple laid out was able to circumvent and use automatically generated prompts instead of closed ones. Apple's threats have been scattered and the project has evolved. Bad companies have suggested that the Linux kernel contains a number of patent infringements - if specific details are disclosed, then such violations can be circumvented. Patent infringements in the Linux kernel will not cause the closure of all GNU / Linux distributions overnight. And it would be dishonest to say that any other free software is somehow different in this regard. Even if serious violations are found in Free Software, there will be nothing difficult in fixing this — modifying the main application and, possibly, the way to work with it is quite easy. Only closed programs cannot be corrected in case of radical changes, therefore, proprietary programs are the last thing to be taken care of.
• Mono also has a lot of “escape routes”, especially in Debian / Ubuntu. First of all, the dubious non-ISO libraries of Microsoft, like System.Windows.Forms are not included in Mono by default, and are rarely used in free software (because WinForms is like an ass, by the way). if the reason lies in the removal of these libraries, then bam, and they leave without prejudice to free software. Secondly, if more serious changes are required, Mono packages can be patched to fix the violations. If more serious changes are needed, as mentioned above, the programs can also be patched to support any changes to the platform. And if we consider an even more dramatic situation, the programs can be ported to other platforms. This is a complex and time-consuming process, causing enormous harm for future development rates (although it is not worse if the program was written for another platform right away), but no one at the time of writing the program thinks that one day he will raise his hands and say: “Do not worry - It was funny, but I have to stop developing it. ”

Why should Mono be enabled by default in Ubuntu?

We do not want Mono to be installed by default in all distributions. Mono is a software platform, which means it should not be installed for all users. Ubuntu does not come with Java, Scheme, Assemby, LISP and various frameworks by default, simply because they are not interesting to most users.
We want good programs by default. After downloading Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or another distribution, the user should say, “Wow, Free Software is so good that I no longer need Windows.” All free software distributions seeking to gain fans should choose the best applications. In the case of Ubuntu, the Desktop Team made the decision to include in the distribution kit the best application for working with notes and the best photo manager.

The Desktop Team decided that Tomboy was the best note-taking app. The Tomboy application is much more functional than the Sticky Notes applets (as well as GNOME and Windows Vista). Tomboy can also be considered as a free replacement for a proprietary Microsoft OneNote worth? 80. The only application that is similar in features is Zim "Desktop Wiki".

Zim is a high-quality product, but the Desktop Team decided to use Tomboy, since this application is more convenient for many users (and now Tomboy is used as a standard application in this class)
Also, the Desktop Team decided that the best photo manager is the F-Spot program. F-Spot can be compared in capabilities with Apple’s proprietary iPhoto and Picasa applications from Google Inc. F-Spot cannot be compared with file manager applications like gThumb, since one of the key features is the ability to attach important metadata to a photo, but gThumb works for each directory separately, and not for all photos at once, like F-Spot.

Both Tomboy and F-Spot require Mono JITter to run, as well as a set of libraries such as GTK #. Thus, in order to offer these best free programs for new users (these programs are chosen by the Ubuntu Desktop Team), some free software is needed to run other applications, such as the GNOME System Monitor, requires GTKmm to work. As long as Tomboy and F-Spot are the best in their class, they will be included in the Ubuntu distribution, which means that the libraries and applications needed for their work will be included. If the best programs are found, they will be included in the standard Ubuntu distribution, if an application based on Mono is better than other applications, then Mono will be included in the distribution. This opinion is not based on preferences for this framework, although I think that developing in high-level languages ​​such as C # or Python is much faster and more convenient than in C.

Post hosted on Linux today

From your first post it is clear that you are not impartial. Here are some specific phrases, the purpose of which is to curse and show your already definite opinion on the topics you have chosen. All phrases are based on pure prejudice, which forces those who understand something about Mono, not to go for it. Therefore, it seems to everyone that the majority are opponents of Mono.

“There are many better applications that can be included in the distribution” - Please name such applications.

"Pushing through Microsoft technologies" - Help! Help! We are oppressed! No, let's be serious. Good technology is good technology, not the invention of a bicycle that has never helped anyone. Among the participants of the Desktop Team there are no professionals in Mono (most of them are Python fans) and there were no one-sided solutions related to the inclusion of programs in the distribution kit, and there will not be. Nobody pushes anything! None of the packages related to Mono was marked as “important” (Essential: yes).

"The inclusion of these programs defiles Ubuntu" - Demagoguery. Microsoft is an ordinary corporation, not something supernatural. Microsoft’s accusation of impiousness and pushing products does them too much honor. They are a corporation with a huge number of stupid managers and with rare gleams in the form of competent developers. And nothing else.

“Mono fans are making too much noise on the Ubuntu forums.” Actually, Mono’s opponents are to blame. If you talk about accusations of censorship, then you are mistaken. Those who read the details of these accusations, can see in the messages rudeness, threats, disputes, etc., and at the root of all this were opponents of Mono. Neither childishness nor friends among the moderators helped to win the argument.

“Could you tell me why Mono was removed from the Ubuntu distribution distribution?” - I offer you a quote from Thomas Jefferson - “Mockery is his only weapon against incomprehensible judgments. Thoughts must be clear before the mind can do anything with them. ” The requirement to remove Mono from the Ubuntu distribution is unreasonable - there are no other packages in Ubuntu that could be the best replacement, but the community demands to remove Mono. This, simply put, “program terrorism” is a requirement to change the policy and the statement that the Desktop Team is not free to choose based on its own policy. Many people may argue in this matter, but as long as they do not have an adequate replacement for "Mono applications," their choice is simple - make Linux worse and worse, moving to the basic set of applications, or accept the existence of Mono. It is worth noting that such people are a much greater loss than various forum users, for example, Mark Shuttleworth, who repeatedly stated that he did not share the fears of the community about Mono. I personally would support the transition from Mono-applications to other, not based on Mono, but much better in its class.

"Just including it in the standard repository is not acceptable." - This is absolutely acceptable, although this is not the only proposal that is put forward - they range from reclassifying Mono to a non-Free repository, to removing it completely from Debian and Ubuntu. Free programs should be in the standard repository, regardless of their implementation - but if the implementation of an application is the best, then it should be enabled by default.

“The inability of Mono fans to answer those simple questions worries me a little, it seems that there are far more important questions.” - If you accuse someone, then explain the essence of the charges. If you have specific accusations against people who are not opposed to Mono, then write them or do not spread myths.

Movement against Mono

There are people who are “for” some things. They are for freedom, or for technical superiority, or for a sports team, or for something else. There are people who are against. They are against some politicians, or people of a certain nationality, or something else. Some people define themselves as supporters of something, and others as opponents. Mono causes great anger among the second group; in particular, people who use GNU / Linux, not because they are “for” something, but because they are “against” Microsoft. This can be clearly seen in the use of the words "Microshaft" or "Micro $ oft" or other childish attempts to define "them" and "us" to ridicule "them." Everything is symbolic for them: if Mono is free software, then they are “for”, but if it is received free of charge from the hands of the Great Satan, then it is unforgivable.

Many of those who advertised themselves as an opponent of Mono, frankly, look scary, because want Microsoft to die (see comments on Boycott Novell), or try to harm people who have positively responded to Mono (see recent comments on the Ubuntu mailing lists), or hint to those who disagree with them (almost every news item Boycott Novell) - this disgusting behavior is the worst advertisement for Free Software. If people want to be “against” Mono, then there is a reasonable way to do this - for example, working on supporting alternative software packages. If the anti-mono movement wants to be taken seriously, then they need to understand that to fight they need to know well how Mono works and why, in order to properly direct their energy (and the cries of “ZOMG! MICRO $ HAFT!” Have the wrong direction ). I will be HAPPY to see high-quality applications for GNOME in Java or Python - this competition will lead to an improvement in the software as a whole.

Most opponents of Mono are not even the creators of assemblies, and not something that software developers. They argue that programmers (who really spend time developing OSS) should use the platforms they like, not the developers themselves. This is another reason why the arguments of opponents of Mono do not receive due attention - the assumption that someone can decide for developers is very annoying. STR is based on meritocracy - the more capable gain more respect. While opponents of Mono will not contribute to open source software, they will look odd and their questions will remain unanswered.

In the end, there is nothing that will make the controversy around Mono disappear, as long as the vague threats of a legal attack are spread and fueled by some members of the community. Virtually nothing can appease those who have already formed their own opinion without any concern about real reasons or facts. I consider the arguments against Mono based on reality or facts to be good and welcome them, but I rarely met them. And even if they are presented, they are drowning in such a thick sauce of demagogy, fear, uncertainty and doubt that really important information is simply not visible.

So, I consider this article what you were looking for. You can reprint it or not. It was created as a new chapter in the daily personal attacks on me by the very sophisticated opponents of Mono.

Translated using the resource translated.by and OLO-users: ha7y (1488), nsinreal (1043), Sugaroverdose (472), fog (55), r0z1k (21), LMaster (3).
Also participated: ABCD (183), ventalf (154). Idea: fog