More on mono
Jo Shields posts a reply to
and the old comparison to Wine pops up again.
Now when I install Ubuntu and therefor Gnome, it does not pull in Wine at all. In fact, I've been running Ubuntu without wine for most of the past 5 years. So killing wine would only affect people still locked in to certain windows programs and not have any effect of the Free Desktop by itself.
In contrast, removing mono rips out F-Spot and Tomboy and even the Ubuntu-desktop meta-package. You see, Ubuntu uses a lot of mono-apps by default and even vanilla-Gnome includes Tomboy and as such, depends on mono. Yes, replacing Tomboy is easy, but what if Evolution also comes to depend on mono, or Nautilus or gnome-panel? Then ripping out mono means the end of the Gnome Desktop.
Secondly, the pro-mono camp dances arround the patent issue and keeps doing so. First they pointed to the Ecma standardisation that would prove it was Free to use and iplement, but Sam Varghese proved them wrong on this. Let's not forget that de Icaza, the mono project-lead himself, pointed to Ecma as the source to answer patent-related inquiries. Jo Shields just ignores what happened when Sam tried to obtain this elusive license and instead just questions if Microsofts patents actually apply to mono.
In my opinion, all this makes the pro-mono arguments pretty thin. If even de Icaza and people like Jo Shields can't get the answers right and can't agree on a single answer to the questions, why should we than trust a blanket statement saying this technology is safe to bet the future of the Gnome project or even a distribution like Ubuntu on?