The-Source.com

Let’s look at some more Mono Misinformation, so the Gentle Reader can gain a sense of what one faces when braving the Wilds of Ignorance.

Oh Twitter User, It’s So Cute When You Try

So, as I parsed my enormous referrer logs, populated only with visits by Distinguished Guests of the Highest Caliber, I noticed some incoming Twitter traffic. Imagine my shock when I found someone defending Mono on Twitter! Then imagine my utter disbelief when I found that same someone – brace yourself – had their facts wrong! Why I nearly succumbed to the Vapors that Very Moment!

A shock I know, but steel yourself, Gentle Reader, as we journey forth again…(and to seven hells with Twitter for not having an easy-to-use threaded conversation view. I’ve often said this is because no one is interested in having a real conversation or discussion there. Twitter: Proof that a terrible UI is no bar to massive success.)

plaimbock: #ubuntu 11.04 switches to #banshee http://is.gd/i7avD but what about the #MCP/patent issues? pixie dust made them vanish? http://is.gd/i7aUx

trampstr: @plaimbock Their are no patient issues, Banshee is covered a legally binding “community promise” not to sue

trampstr: @plaimbock maybe you missed it but the work to cut back the size of the banshee install for 11.04 removed all non EMCA components. Its safe.

trampstr: @plaimbock http://bit.ly/e81pnr <- commit that removed all non emca components.

Of course, those who are paying attention in class already know the problem, but I’ll point it out here for anyone just joining us:

• Banshee is not covered, in any sense.
• All of the non-ECMA components were not removed.
• That commit doesn’t remove all the non-ECMA components.

3 tweets, every one of which is totally, 100% wrong presented as casually as you like without disclaimer, explainer or retainer.

Let me also note there is also an important distinction to be made between “Banshee is covered” and “Mono is covered”. If applications were directly being covered, then we wouldn’t care if Mono or Logo or Any Other Language were being used. But the Community Promise is applied to the C#/CLI implementation, which means it is Mono that the application developer is relying on to be safe within the confines of the Microsoft Community Promise.

In effect, the Mono project and its promoters are making a promise to application developers and users: “Use Mono to develop your applications, it’s useful and safe. Microsoft has made a promise.” The implication is that developers and users need not be concerned with verifying they are remaining withing the boundaries of Microsoft’s promise. But, this sort of Mono Apologist violates that trust by not only implementing things they know are not covered by the promise, but also by obfuscating which bits are “safe” and “unsafe” and then lying about it.

That’s a whole different thing than being honest and saying something like “Mono may be risky, but we think it’s useful and not too risky.” Nothing wrong with this premise, because I believe rational people can evaluate the level of acceptable risk differently. (Team Apologista has a problem here in how they argue it, but the premise is a decent enough starting point.)

So, the original questioner has been misled. Perhaps not maliciously – but misled nonetheless. Of course, there’s more:

plaimbock: @trampstr: what about this report that #banshee, tomboy, f-spot and #mono use non-ECMA namespaces? http://is.gd/iEe7Z

trampstr: @plaimbock thats old info, also it lists System.Xml as non EMCA but it is in ECMA335.

Um, no – it is not “old info”. Unless you consider the last 2 days “old”. The source code repository is ~2 days old, and the ECMA standard is the released-this-month 5th Edition. Any more up-to-date and it would be realtime. Furthermore, while parts of System.Xml are now in the standard, the commonly used methods by the Mono apps do not appear to be - as I explitictly mentioned in the “Cautionary note” in my post. The System.Xml thing is legit.

How do you combat this? One tries to be careful in researching and fact-checking – no-one is forthcoming with easy, available or comprehensive references in this area, after all – and yet any random jackass on Twitter will authoritatively deny something even when looking right at it! Is this person a liar? Incompetent? Lazy? Just repeating shit he read on some Mono Cabal Talking Points Memo? All or none of the above?

And of course, the final delight, an amazingly un-self-aware twit tweet :

trampstr: @plaimbock there are very strong opinions on both sides. and lots of miss information going around (from both sides).

FUUUUUUUUUU! YOU! YOU! You are the one spreading misinformation! Gah!

Aaaanywaaay

The good news is: now that it is clearly documented that:

• All of the most popular Mono applications in Linux use non-ECMA .NET namespaces extensively
• Mono is not split into ECMA/non-ECMA packages in Debian/Ubuntu, and probably not in any other distro either

I am supremely confident that we will never again hear another argument from a Mono Apologist suggesting otherwise. I also fully expect those very vocal Mono Apologists who manage to appear in every thread to defend Mono and may have stated or implied different, to go back and correct themselves so they don’t continue to mislead others. After all, I know factual accuracy is of the highest concern.

I am also expecting Swedish Triplets and a Lamborghini Spyder Performante for Xmas.

Which do think is more likely?