Posted by: Anonymous
on March 28, 2008 03:40 PM
I prefer not to encourage the use of Mono. To me, Mono is like Samba. I'm thankful that we have it, but wish to the gods that we didn't need it. Mono is good for compatibility with MS stuff. But I don't think that it is wise to rely on it for infrastructure, or common Linux applications. I know that many make the argument that it is actually safe from a legal standpoint. And they may even be right. But that's irrelevant. As the perpetual, and ridiculous SCO saga so clearly shows, one does not have to have a good case to generate a great deal of fear uncertainty and doubt. SCO is and was a bit player with not very deep pockets. Can you imagine what a well funded opponent could do in the case of Mono, where we can't even deny that we reimplemented Microsoft technology? Microsoft wants .net to become ubiquitous, and we need to be prepared for the scenario in which it does. But once it has achieved critical mass, you can bet that they will be ready to hit the kill switch regarding third party implementations, because they want to own the whole market. They would likely not actually launch a legal attack, but bring to bear all of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt tactics that their richly funded PR department could muster.
Now, aside from that, Mono is a memory hog. And I have yet to see the programmer productivity benefits that are supposed to be its claim to fame actually play out in the real world. Just look at Beagle vs Tracker. How did a small group of developers with no corporate sponsorship and who got a late start, writing in C, manage to catch up with, and surpass Novell's premier Mono-based project, which even had the core of their software, the indexer, handed to them on a silver platter in the form of Apache Lucene, which only had to be ported from Java to C#?
Other than for a certain "Samba-like" MS compatibility factor, I see no real advantages to FOSS projects using Mono.