'Mono'lithic Conspiracy to do Harm

There was a rather unfortunate post to the Ubuntu Developers List today, someone was raving about mono and posted links to boycott Novell. Now it’s worth noting that I’m against the use of Mono for none technical reasons, but I don’t appreciate people who don’t follow the Ubuntu Code of Conduct and who make wild accusations of conspiracy and malignancy.

The following is an attempt to explain the none technical issues which a lot of people have not been otherwise convinced and not everyone will agree actually matter but which have produced the anti-mono sentiment:

  1. FOSS didn’t invent the thing and it stings the ego to have an outsider invent something better than what currently exists.
  2. The ECMA does not effect strict control over a standard’s legal effects and the issue of RAND licensing for the patents and the documents themselves have yet to be found through investigation. Lack of solid legal ground for accepting the standard as properly licensed raises concerns of unseen legal problems.
  3. Microsoft can’t be trusted because of multiple counts of social harm, people from that ‘tribe’ are likewise untrustworthy. Because the acts are so frequent and gross they are classed as an habitual criminal organisation by many who go on to support the FOSS community.
  4. Novell can’t be trusted because it is seen by some as their intent to do harm on other members of the FOSS ecosystem by signing convents and other agreements with Microsoft.
  5. Miguel de Icaza works for Novell and has professed fond admiration for Microsoft and thus can be said to lack moral judgement through association with a criminal organisation.

As you can see, some people will agree these points; but by stating them rationally I hope I’ve given everyone some empathy to look at your supposed enemy and think about what it is _they_ care about. Very rarely will we find malicious or underhanded acts from within and it’s more likely that the crazy argument method is just causing a typical backlash effect in which each side becomes even more polarised and ineffective at making rationale arguments with their opposites.