The Mono Mystery That Wasn't 268
jammag writes "It was shocking news, or so it seemed: Miguel de Icaza, the Mono creator, was switching his opinion about his life's work — he now seemed to agree with the free software partisans who oppose his Mono work and his Microsoft connections. The story flamed across the Internet and even got picked up on Slashdot. But Bruce Byfield reports that 'De Icaza has not changed his opinions.' De Icaza calls the rumors 'a storm in a teacup.' Tracing the misinformation trail, Byfield concludes that 'the FOSS community excels at communication. However, in this instance, that ability was used irresponsibly.'"
His life's work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't this guy start Gnome (or maybe KDE)? that is actually "life's work" worthy, not something nobody cares about like mono.
Re:Who cares about core libraries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good News (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who actually knows Miguel de Icaza and someone who was there when Mono began, I can tell you with absolute certainty that he started Mono because he truly believes that it's a good platform. As do I and all of the other Mono developers (none of whom get a "fat paycheck" from Microsoft or anyone else). The Mono team is underfunded at Novell, so I and likely other developers have taken a pay CUT in order to work on what we believe in.
We are not paid to parrot any opinions from Microsoft or Novell. Our opinions are our own and we stand by them.
Re:-1 Misses the point (Score:3, Interesting)
What does java do that python can't?
Re:Good News (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't work for the enjoyment of it. I've never had a job I wouldn't rather quit to go read novels all day. I believe most people, if they were being honest, would agree with the statement. That makes us both whores. The only people who work who are not whores are those who are independently wealthy or retired, and work merely for fun or to stave off boredom.
Re:-1 Misses the point (Score:1, Interesting)
There was no open source framework like this because no one in his right mind would want to develop such a framework for his own use.
Both Java and .NET are frameworks made for OTHER people, so those other people can produce seemingly working software while being completely ignorant and untrained. This is why most of "convenience" of Java and .NET is completely irrelevant for developers who produce high-quality code -- as far as language is concerned, if one can notice any "improvement" between C++ and Java, he is likely not qualified to use either.
Java and .NET conquer developers by building massive blobs of interdependent infrastructure that can be only used within those frameworks. Once someone makes an attempt to use a tiny part of it, he has to accept the whole thing, and reject everything else, as this is the core design behind those systems. This is why non-idiots end up working with Java and .NET, not because those platforms are based on some kind of useful ideas.
And now those massive pieces of infrastructure are crumbling under their own weight because everyone who is working on them, mimics Sun and Microsoft, and writes his own massive infrastructures on top on those infrastructures without having nearly enough resources to maintain those things. It's infrastructures all the way down.
C++/Qt developer produces better-looking, more portable and much simpler GUI applications, C programmer does likewise with network servers, and Python programmer writes complex scripts. Java and .NET ended up being a path toward eternal mediocrity that Microsoft so much relies on, and Sun ended up contributing to.
He HAS Admitted Defeat (Score:5, Interesting)
It's very clear. The part in bold I find most damning. This indicates that he knew all along that you couldn't create an open source implementation of even the CLR without permission from Microsoft. There is a lot in here, but people like Bruce Byfield obviously havent read it properly. He's tried top backtrack and cover up a bit by saying that it's all nothing, but it most certainly is something.