This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mono (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article now needs to be updated since Microsoft now own Xamarin. A lot of the FSF fears are now moot. The project is highly unlikely to be killed for patent reasons, although it could be killed for many others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.76.87 ( talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ground rules: The purpose of talk pages is to facilitate discussion. This can only happen if people show some minimal courtesy, including treating each other with civility and respecting each other's opinions. Truly exceptional circumstances aside, nobody should need to make any substantive edits to another user's comments. Removal of comments, bad-faith editing, incivility, trolling, etc. will not be tolerated. Ignore these rules at your own peril. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the critisizms of the Mono framework? Not just the patents but complaints from the MS camp about poor implimentation. I know there are such complaints, but I don't code so I cant talk!
Well... the conservative garbage collector is clearly a serious achilles' heel, and it looks like it's here to stay for a while. Should somehow mention that in the article :-) Sbohmann ( talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
did it :-) Sbohmann ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to incorporate a link to the conservative vs precise collector section of the garbage collector article - only... how am i supposed to do this in this context, as a full link would seem inappropriately space consuming and visible in this context... Sbohmann ( talk) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There curently is a controversy, and criticism about Mono. It is an objective fact. I will gather objective info about this issue and submit it here. ( daedhel) 29 sept. 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
The article provides undue weight to editorial statements from the FSF and Richard Stallman. Generally FUD isn't included in articles. (As an exercise search for the word "Microsoft" on the Linux page, you won't see any FUD from Microsoft). I would suggest mentioning the current stir concerning theoretical patent issues, the deal with Novell, the community agreement, and moving on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.211.124 ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Especially now that Microsoft has put forth the Community Promise. Mono is the only platform on Wikipedia with patent FUD section and it's not like other platforms are free from nebulous patent threats. -- 76.119.36.151 ( talk) 00:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The term "proprietary open source" exists, for example it can be meet in [1]. It is true I'm working on the problem and publishing articles for science conferences. For example in have written article [2] (in Russian, so you will need to translate to read it) about the problem of 'proprietary open source'. And the article was written before I knew that DotGNU exists.[krokas]
You could have seen my name on the GPE Palmtop Environment (of which I'm really a developer and really have cvs commit access), Allegro, Debian or Mono communities irc channels. The fact of being on a logged irc channel of a Free Sofware/Open Source project doesn't make automagically someone a developer of the project. This is non-sense and has nothing to do with the free open source development practice. I don't even have a commit access to the DotGNU project cvs. Although I really have used the PNET engine for my project, the DotGNU community has helped me and is very friendly. [krokas]
User:85.140.83.108 reintroduced the "proprietary open source" expression again.
So I did a little bit of research. He created a page with the expression "proprietary open source" on November 20, an expression which is not only an oxymoron, but is intended to hurt Mono's image by adding a negative connocation to it. The sole purpose of the page was to associate it with Mono, as can be seen by the fact that the only two pages that linked to it (up to January 19th 2006) were the Mono page and the .NET page when referencing Mono.
The IP for 83.237.108.102 and 85.140.83.108 belong to the same person, he goes by the nickname "krokas" on irc (this can be found by googling for his ip addresses) and he is involved in the development of a competing project (dotgnu). Krokas has used the expression "proprietary open source" a number of times on their irc channel. The only other mention of the term "proprietary open source" on the web has a different connotation and was used by Bruce Perens when refering to the subscription and support models that are provided to customers purchasing the software (and is in no way related to the actual contents of the actual page Mr Krokas created).
This practice Mr Krokas dislikes so much is often refered as Dual license, and the Wikipedia article on the subject is not politicized by the desire to promote one project over another.
Other projects that have commercial backing and require copyright assignment have not received the continuous flood of edits from Mr Krokas: OpenOffice, MySQL, Qt, Berkeley DB and other projects that use dual licensing to fund the open source development (The page Dual license has more projects).
For User:83.237.108.102: please stop this edit war; let's discuss here or in my talk page, please. No, Mono is definitely not proprietary, even if its development is leaded by a commercial company. You can say that it's commercial free software since it's presumably written (also) for a profit, but its license makes it inequivocably free sofware and open source. For another example of commercial free software I invite you to see GNAT; also many developers of GCC are paid, but this doesn't make the compiler proprietary. The same holds for many RedHat tools. -- positron 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The project can be either open source or not. If it is released under the open source license (GPL, LGPL and so on), it is the open source project, even if written by the devil himself. If there are any additional restrictions, or the license is specific, it probably is not. I downloaded the Mono sources, they contain the file Copying.lib with the text of LGPL. To be completely sure, it would be good to check if it builds. Novell is doing something very strange by not saying nothing direct about the license in the main homepage, but there is unlinked [3] that states all licenses are open source. Audriusa
Hi User:83.237.60.214. I reverted your edits (twice) about Portable.NET and the patents and licensing. Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend. Also, the article has a section discussing the patents and licensing.
Your addition is an opinion more than facts. - David Björklund ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Over the past few days an intensive campaign from an anonymous user logging in from a variety of 83.237.* IP addresses has engaged in the following activities:
The user is associated with a competing project to Mono and has decided to promote the agenda of the competing project on the Wikipedia.
Maybe it is time to call for arbitration. -- User:Miguel.de.Icaza
I have requested help from the Wikipedia admins in dealing with the deletion of discussion on the Mono talk page, and his changes to the main page.
User Krokas has decided that the background history on the beginning of the project is not worth having in the "History" section because it is not appropriate there.
I did not add that section, but it feels that the history of the project has a spot on the History section. His comments. The actual comment for the removal of the history is:
Ok, it's up to 83.237/16 to explain on what grounds he objects to the passages in the history section which he removed. "Not appropriate" is not a sufficient explanation. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Essentially Miguel, a good way forward is that if you can find good documentable evidence froma reliable source supporting the material, then it is reasonable to include it in the article. Then anyone wishing to remove it would have to provide legitimate reasons to remove it which would typically require a more authoritative source or a consensus among a number of editors. But I agree with Mark, reverts are bad, don't do them even if you feel your position is right. Justify it and the truth will prevail. If 83.237 refuses to justify his position after being clearly asked such as now, it is reasonable for other editors to revert his/her edits, but it's still better if that's not you doing the reverting. I'll let Mark mediate because he's doing a good job and specifically state that that material looks like it makes sense to go back into the history section and 83.237's reasoning is weak to remove it, but it should also cite it's sources so it's beyond reproach. If enough others agree, it would represent a consensus against 83.237's edits. - Taxman Talk 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that to conform to what has become conventional on Wikipedia, part of the title of this page should be in parentheses, as the article refers to "Mono" in the first line rather than the longer version given in the title.
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... before this was basically a full duplicate of the section at DotGNU or vice versa. If you take a look at that page I massively trimmed the .net-specific stuff out of there.... I'm wondering which way people prefer? RN 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
LAMP (software bundle) gives the P in the acronym as referring to " Perl, PHP, Python, and/or (rarely) Primate, scripting/programming languages." -- "Primate" directs to this article, Mono (software), in which the word "Primate" does not occur. I assume that this is not an error, but neither is it helpful for the uninitiated. Let's include a note of explanation or fix it if wrong. -- Writtenonsand 22:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The statement: "On February 2007, the Free Software Foundation announced that it is reviewing Novell's right to sell Linux versions, and even may ban Novell from selling Linux, because of this agreement [1] [7]"
Is extremely misleading. The source report in Reuters appears to have quoted Eben Moglen out-of-context. This statement should be pulled I think. Reference: Eben Moglen's rebuttal of the Reuters article. 194.151.95.22 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put this headline for questions that can be added to the article when answered.
Does anyone know if a
trie is implemented in the text
interning for the Mono CLR?
DotnetCarpenter
07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mono project logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
version 1.2.5.2 for windows are available, pls fix it -- 195.113.141.213 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
excuse me for being a noob, but is this .net framework supposed to be aimed at allowing windows programs to be run in linux w/ out use of apps like wine? etc... -- Alex Ov Shaolin 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
According to http://mono-project.com/Mono:BSD there is no official port for OpenBSD. Perhaps it is possible to install Mono on OpenBSD using pkgsrc (NetBSD package collection).
85.222.21.198 ( talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a POV-tag to the Just-in-time engine paragraph (don't know how to tag only for a section). My concerns are that:
As there are no other references about the current algorithm dangerousness, I think that for the moment this paragraph is WP:POV, or maybe WP:OR. However, maybe there are sources dealing about that, I think that we should look for them and rm the sentence after a while if we are not able to find any. Beware that we should not put our own conclusions, sentences in wikipedia must be backed by first-class facts, else it is WP:OR. Hervegirod ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No mention there of "dangerousness". It's just a well known fact that conservative GC has got certain disadvantages compared to contemporary industrial strength GC. Sbohmann ( talk) 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
in the mono project's contribution page, it clearly states that if you have seen the source code for .NET, you cannot contribute to Mono, is this important? could this be used in the main article?
Levicc00123 ( talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
References 15 and 17 are currently identical. They should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 ( talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I just made a schema for the Mono structure in French for the French wiki.
Someone could translate it into English for this wiki page.
There are some problems with the Commons's SVG renderer, so you must export it into PNG if you use Inkscape like me.
-- Rapha222 ( talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is too detailed about FSF's opinion. Its not really relevant to an article about Mono. So far, their concerns have proven to be unfounded. The pragmatic view held by Canonical is the one more prevalent in the industry at large. My proposal: remove the section entirely. Dave.hillier ( talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed the section today (651316) Dave.hillier ( talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I found this discussion via AN/I, and decided to offer my thoughts on the subject. In the interest of full disclosure, I am on an FSF mailing list, but am not otherwise personally involved. I am concerned about the FSF warnings section, in part because it seems to rely very heavily on primary sources (eg., FSF webpages). We should generally prefer secondary sources per WP:PSTS, particularly reliable sources such as news media; citing these would also make it easier to assess the notability of the FSF's warnings. That is to say, how much attention has the rest of the world paid to the FSF's warnings — we need to know that in order to assess how much weight they should be given. My intuition is that we should pay some attention, but that we're currently giving too much weight to the FSF's views. But I could be wrong about that, and I think that secondary sourcing would help to determine that. Jakew ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/08/27/1732219/Net-On-Android-Is-Safe-Says-Microsoft?from=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.hillier ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two main reasons this section should at least be folded into a short reference in a criticism section (but given the latest developments between Oracle and Google, it should probably just be deleted):
Can someone please read WP:FRINGE - especially the part of primary and secondary sources - and explain to me how FSF is not a primary source in this? If FSF is to be considered a primary source (they make the claims against Mono) it is hard to see how this section does not fall under WP:FRINGE as well as WP:UNDUE. All of the claims of the section, except for the last 2 (Canonical and Fedora) fails the most basic WP:VERIFY test: The claims referenced are made by the parties involved. These are references to primary sources and violates WP:NOR "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " Useerup ( talk) 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Since no one answered this request I have today removed the reference to the opinionated primary sources (FSF and Miguel d'Icaza). After that the heading didn't make sense, so it went as well. I kept the secondary sources (Canonical and Fedora statements) as well as the factual reference to MS community promise. 83.94.199.190 ( talk) 18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this. FSF is a valid source, and removing it like to did is not complaint with WP:NOR . You only kept the answer of Canonical and en Fedora, which is a way of putting only one side of the argument and not the other one. Plus: FSF IS a reliable source, and it is NOT a primary source. A preimary source here is Miguel De Icaza or Novell. But even if FSF was a primary source, you misinterpret WP:NOR, which is to avoid to put invalid content, such as content put by editor themselves: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Which means that FSF (a valid source, let's say primary in your point of view) can be quoted, but that anhy interpretation must be done by secondary or tertiary sources. I think that you were too quick to delete this content, and thus I put it back. Hervegirod ( talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
FSF is a party to the controversy. In fact, they instigated it. The section is all about the controversy and the discussion between 2 primary sources on the controversy: FSF and Mono project. These are the primary sources and I don't see how you can spin it otherwise. Further, FSF is an ideological organization with clearly stated ideological goals. As such they have a conflict of interests with the stated goals of the Mono project. That makes them not a reliable source. As you said, any interpretation of primary source material (like e.g. statements and opinions by FSF or the Mono project) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. One which indicates that the secondary source has taken an unbiased look at the situation. The only paragraphs of the section which remotely resembled that were the references to evaluations by Canonical and Fedora. They are decidedly secondary sources (to the controversy between FSF and Mono). Whether they are reliable that's up for discussion. I'd say that they are. So far no other reliable secondary source has been referenced to support FSF's claims. Hence, WP:FRINGE (and WP:NOR) comes into play. As the statements are decidedly potentially harmful, they don't belong here. Deleted again. Feel free to delete the Canonical and Fedora statements if you can demonstrate why they should not be considered reliable. Useerup ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The idea that Debian doesn't include Mono in its default install is a misnomer. The truth is that Debian's default install includes very little and one must install their own choice in Desktop software. Interestingly, if you install the 'gnome' package in Lenny, Squeeze or Sid (the 3 most recent versions of Debian), it pulls in Tomboy (which pulls in Mono). See here: http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gnome 130.57.22.201 ( talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also argue that the entire purpose of listing distributions that don't include Mono by default serves no purpose but to try to discredit Mono. Note that most Linux distributions don't include a lot of software by default (e.g. Apache), but you don't see those pages discussing how that software isn't included by default in distributions. Just something to think about. 130.57.22.201 ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that the lack of continued discussion for ~5 days suggests that everyone is fine with the way things read right now wrt the status of Mono in Fedora? ("... no legal conclusion ...") BrianRandal ( talk) 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Disclosure: I added this disclosure to the Talk:Moonlight page, but apparently forgot to add it here. So, for the sake of making this thread easier to follow, I was User:130.57.22.201 until I registered an account as User:Nigelj suggested on the Moonlight talk page. NovellGuy ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize this page was protected until I went to make this small change. Perhaps someone will do it for me. The word "leveraging" is slang with a slightly positive bias, so it would probably be best replaced with "incorporating", "using", or "making use of". (I prefer "using".) Now I'm off to read what I expect to be an entertaining Talk page. :) Maghnus ( talk) 16:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am inserting one word -- "stated" -- in the introduction, to change "the purpose of Mono is" to "the stated purpose of Mono is". To forestall undue argument, here is an explanation.
We can rarely, if ever, know what somebody's true purpose is. But we can always tell what the stated purpose is, if the doer has stated it. Mono is a very controversial project, and many people have said many contradictory things about it. Simply describing the stated purpose of Mono keeps the assertion objective and non-controversial. It keeps Wikipedia out of the business of guessing anybody's private motivations. Rahul ( talk) 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that "Mono supports everything in .NET 4.0 except WPF, Entity Framework and WF, limited WCF". I don't think this is true, at least for the current release (Mono 2.8). Many applications using the Task Parallel Library (System.Threading.Tasks) fail, as do applications using System.Numerics.BigInteger for example. These are all part of .NET 4.0 so you cannot really say that Mono is .NET 4.0 compliant. Specifically the official release notes for Mono 2.8 claim that "many of the .NET 4.0 APIs have been implemented in mscorlib". It says "many", not "every" or "every ... except ...". "Complete .NET 4.0 Core Support" (with the exceptions as stated within the article) is announced for Mono 3.0, which has no announced release date. This is all from the project's roadmap page ( http://mono-project.com/Roadmap) and the release notes of Mono 2.8 ( http://mono-project.com/Release_Notes_Mono_2.8). I changed the formulation towards "Mono's aim is to achieve full support for the features in .NET 4.0 except ..." as the support is not complete yet. 141.82.19.233 ( talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added {{ citation needed}} to the pronunciation at the very beginning of the article. Every single person I've talked to about Mono pronounces it /ˈmɑ.noʊ/ ("maw-noh") and I haven't seen any reliable sources indicate which pronunciation is correct. -- Chris (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As there has been no discussion nor have any citations been brought forth for the pronunciation, I have removed it from the article. -- Chris (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You can write XNA based games for the Xbox 360, but my understanding was that this was a port of the CLR by Microsoft, and that it does not use Mono. It is possible the author meant to state that some other port of Mono's CLR can run on a modded Xbox 360(?). Either way, please cite a reference. Thanks. BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 10:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
According to https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Qyoto and empty repo with Qyoto/Kimono, Qyoto seems dead, so link was changed to QtSharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.207.246.126 ( talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mono (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Mono 5.4.1 Stable (5.4.1.7) has no support for Windows XP or Vista. Removed XP,Vista from the supported OS list. What was the last version compatible with XP?
The CLR is an implementation and the CLI is the standard. The article previously said that they are the same thing but there were no references. I changed it to say that the CLR implements the CLI and added references for them. The article currently says that the CLI is implemented by the CLR that is implemented by the Mono executable but I think that needs to be improved, the double implementation sounds strange to me. Sam Tomato ( talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have just updated the Stable release to the most recent stable release on https://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/. However, I am having some trouble finding the latest preview release. The preview release that was listed is wrong, so I have just removed the preview release section for now. Would appreciate it if someone added that back in. Thanks. Justanotherinternetguy 21:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mono (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article now needs to be updated since Microsoft now own Xamarin. A lot of the FSF fears are now moot. The project is highly unlikely to be killed for patent reasons, although it could be killed for many others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.76.87 ( talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ground rules: The purpose of talk pages is to facilitate discussion. This can only happen if people show some minimal courtesy, including treating each other with civility and respecting each other's opinions. Truly exceptional circumstances aside, nobody should need to make any substantive edits to another user's comments. Removal of comments, bad-faith editing, incivility, trolling, etc. will not be tolerated. Ignore these rules at your own peril. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no section on the critisizms of the Mono framework? Not just the patents but complaints from the MS camp about poor implimentation. I know there are such complaints, but I don't code so I cant talk!
Well... the conservative garbage collector is clearly a serious achilles' heel, and it looks like it's here to stay for a while. Should somehow mention that in the article :-) Sbohmann ( talk) 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
did it :-) Sbohmann ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to incorporate a link to the conservative vs precise collector section of the garbage collector article - only... how am i supposed to do this in this context, as a full link would seem inappropriately space consuming and visible in this context... Sbohmann ( talk) 19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There curently is a controversy, and criticism about Mono. It is an objective fact. I will gather objective info about this issue and submit it here. ( daedhel) 29 sept. 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
The article provides undue weight to editorial statements from the FSF and Richard Stallman. Generally FUD isn't included in articles. (As an exercise search for the word "Microsoft" on the Linux page, you won't see any FUD from Microsoft). I would suggest mentioning the current stir concerning theoretical patent issues, the deal with Novell, the community agreement, and moving on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.211.124 ( talk) 03:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Especially now that Microsoft has put forth the Community Promise. Mono is the only platform on Wikipedia with patent FUD section and it's not like other platforms are free from nebulous patent threats. -- 76.119.36.151 ( talk) 00:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The term "proprietary open source" exists, for example it can be meet in [1]. It is true I'm working on the problem and publishing articles for science conferences. For example in have written article [2] (in Russian, so you will need to translate to read it) about the problem of 'proprietary open source'. And the article was written before I knew that DotGNU exists.[krokas]
You could have seen my name on the GPE Palmtop Environment (of which I'm really a developer and really have cvs commit access), Allegro, Debian or Mono communities irc channels. The fact of being on a logged irc channel of a Free Sofware/Open Source project doesn't make automagically someone a developer of the project. This is non-sense and has nothing to do with the free open source development practice. I don't even have a commit access to the DotGNU project cvs. Although I really have used the PNET engine for my project, the DotGNU community has helped me and is very friendly. [krokas]
User:85.140.83.108 reintroduced the "proprietary open source" expression again.
So I did a little bit of research. He created a page with the expression "proprietary open source" on November 20, an expression which is not only an oxymoron, but is intended to hurt Mono's image by adding a negative connocation to it. The sole purpose of the page was to associate it with Mono, as can be seen by the fact that the only two pages that linked to it (up to January 19th 2006) were the Mono page and the .NET page when referencing Mono.
The IP for 83.237.108.102 and 85.140.83.108 belong to the same person, he goes by the nickname "krokas" on irc (this can be found by googling for his ip addresses) and he is involved in the development of a competing project (dotgnu). Krokas has used the expression "proprietary open source" a number of times on their irc channel. The only other mention of the term "proprietary open source" on the web has a different connotation and was used by Bruce Perens when refering to the subscription and support models that are provided to customers purchasing the software (and is in no way related to the actual contents of the actual page Mr Krokas created).
This practice Mr Krokas dislikes so much is often refered as Dual license, and the Wikipedia article on the subject is not politicized by the desire to promote one project over another.
Other projects that have commercial backing and require copyright assignment have not received the continuous flood of edits from Mr Krokas: OpenOffice, MySQL, Qt, Berkeley DB and other projects that use dual licensing to fund the open source development (The page Dual license has more projects).
For User:83.237.108.102: please stop this edit war; let's discuss here or in my talk page, please. No, Mono is definitely not proprietary, even if its development is leaded by a commercial company. You can say that it's commercial free software since it's presumably written (also) for a profit, but its license makes it inequivocably free sofware and open source. For another example of commercial free software I invite you to see GNAT; also many developers of GCC are paid, but this doesn't make the compiler proprietary. The same holds for many RedHat tools. -- positron 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The project can be either open source or not. If it is released under the open source license (GPL, LGPL and so on), it is the open source project, even if written by the devil himself. If there are any additional restrictions, or the license is specific, it probably is not. I downloaded the Mono sources, they contain the file Copying.lib with the text of LGPL. To be completely sure, it would be good to check if it builds. Novell is doing something very strange by not saying nothing direct about the license in the main homepage, but there is unlinked [3] that states all licenses are open source. Audriusa
Hi User:83.237.60.214. I reverted your edits (twice) about Portable.NET and the patents and licensing. Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend. Also, the article has a section discussing the patents and licensing.
Your addition is an opinion more than facts. - David Björklund ( talk) 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Over the past few days an intensive campaign from an anonymous user logging in from a variety of 83.237.* IP addresses has engaged in the following activities:
The user is associated with a competing project to Mono and has decided to promote the agenda of the competing project on the Wikipedia.
Maybe it is time to call for arbitration. -- User:Miguel.de.Icaza
I have requested help from the Wikipedia admins in dealing with the deletion of discussion on the Mono talk page, and his changes to the main page.
User Krokas has decided that the background history on the beginning of the project is not worth having in the "History" section because it is not appropriate there.
I did not add that section, but it feels that the history of the project has a spot on the History section. His comments. The actual comment for the removal of the history is:
Ok, it's up to 83.237/16 to explain on what grounds he objects to the passages in the history section which he removed. "Not appropriate" is not a sufficient explanation. -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Essentially Miguel, a good way forward is that if you can find good documentable evidence froma reliable source supporting the material, then it is reasonable to include it in the article. Then anyone wishing to remove it would have to provide legitimate reasons to remove it which would typically require a more authoritative source or a consensus among a number of editors. But I agree with Mark, reverts are bad, don't do them even if you feel your position is right. Justify it and the truth will prevail. If 83.237 refuses to justify his position after being clearly asked such as now, it is reasonable for other editors to revert his/her edits, but it's still better if that's not you doing the reverting. I'll let Mark mediate because he's doing a good job and specifically state that that material looks like it makes sense to go back into the history section and 83.237's reasoning is weak to remove it, but it should also cite it's sources so it's beyond reproach. If enough others agree, it would represent a consensus against 83.237's edits. - Taxman Talk 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that to conform to what has become conventional on Wikipedia, part of the title of this page should be in parentheses, as the article refers to "Mono" in the first line rather than the longer version given in the title.
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... before this was basically a full duplicate of the section at DotGNU or vice versa. If you take a look at that page I massively trimmed the .net-specific stuff out of there.... I'm wondering which way people prefer? RN 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
LAMP (software bundle) gives the P in the acronym as referring to " Perl, PHP, Python, and/or (rarely) Primate, scripting/programming languages." -- "Primate" directs to this article, Mono (software), in which the word "Primate" does not occur. I assume that this is not an error, but neither is it helpful for the uninitiated. Let's include a note of explanation or fix it if wrong. -- Writtenonsand 22:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The statement: "On February 2007, the Free Software Foundation announced that it is reviewing Novell's right to sell Linux versions, and even may ban Novell from selling Linux, because of this agreement [1] [7]"
Is extremely misleading. The source report in Reuters appears to have quoted Eben Moglen out-of-context. This statement should be pulled I think. Reference: Eben Moglen's rebuttal of the Reuters article. 194.151.95.22 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put this headline for questions that can be added to the article when answered.
Does anyone know if a
trie is implemented in the text
interning for the Mono CLR?
DotnetCarpenter
07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mono project logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
version 1.2.5.2 for windows are available, pls fix it -- 195.113.141.213 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
excuse me for being a noob, but is this .net framework supposed to be aimed at allowing windows programs to be run in linux w/ out use of apps like wine? etc... -- Alex Ov Shaolin 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
According to http://mono-project.com/Mono:BSD there is no official port for OpenBSD. Perhaps it is possible to install Mono on OpenBSD using pkgsrc (NetBSD package collection).
85.222.21.198 ( talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a POV-tag to the Just-in-time engine paragraph (don't know how to tag only for a section). My concerns are that:
As there are no other references about the current algorithm dangerousness, I think that for the moment this paragraph is WP:POV, or maybe WP:OR. However, maybe there are sources dealing about that, I think that we should look for them and rm the sentence after a while if we are not able to find any. Beware that we should not put our own conclusions, sentences in wikipedia must be backed by first-class facts, else it is WP:OR. Hervegirod ( talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No mention there of "dangerousness". It's just a well known fact that conservative GC has got certain disadvantages compared to contemporary industrial strength GC. Sbohmann ( talk) 00:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
in the mono project's contribution page, it clearly states that if you have seen the source code for .NET, you cannot contribute to Mono, is this important? could this be used in the main article?
Levicc00123 ( talk) 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
References 15 and 17 are currently identical. They should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 ( talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I just made a schema for the Mono structure in French for the French wiki.
Someone could translate it into English for this wiki page.
There are some problems with the Commons's SVG renderer, so you must export it into PNG if you use Inkscape like me.
-- Rapha222 ( talk) 16:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is too detailed about FSF's opinion. Its not really relevant to an article about Mono. So far, their concerns have proven to be unfounded. The pragmatic view held by Canonical is the one more prevalent in the industry at large. My proposal: remove the section entirely. Dave.hillier ( talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed the section today (651316) Dave.hillier ( talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I found this discussion via AN/I, and decided to offer my thoughts on the subject. In the interest of full disclosure, I am on an FSF mailing list, but am not otherwise personally involved. I am concerned about the FSF warnings section, in part because it seems to rely very heavily on primary sources (eg., FSF webpages). We should generally prefer secondary sources per WP:PSTS, particularly reliable sources such as news media; citing these would also make it easier to assess the notability of the FSF's warnings. That is to say, how much attention has the rest of the world paid to the FSF's warnings — we need to know that in order to assess how much weight they should be given. My intuition is that we should pay some attention, but that we're currently giving too much weight to the FSF's views. But I could be wrong about that, and I think that secondary sourcing would help to determine that. Jakew ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/08/27/1732219/Net-On-Android-Is-Safe-Says-Microsoft?from=rss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.hillier ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two main reasons this section should at least be folded into a short reference in a criticism section (but given the latest developments between Oracle and Google, it should probably just be deleted):
Can someone please read WP:FRINGE - especially the part of primary and secondary sources - and explain to me how FSF is not a primary source in this? If FSF is to be considered a primary source (they make the claims against Mono) it is hard to see how this section does not fall under WP:FRINGE as well as WP:UNDUE. All of the claims of the section, except for the last 2 (Canonical and Fedora) fails the most basic WP:VERIFY test: The claims referenced are made by the parties involved. These are references to primary sources and violates WP:NOR "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. " Useerup ( talk) 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Since no one answered this request I have today removed the reference to the opinionated primary sources (FSF and Miguel d'Icaza). After that the heading didn't make sense, so it went as well. I kept the secondary sources (Canonical and Fedora statements) as well as the factual reference to MS community promise. 83.94.199.190 ( talk) 18:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this. FSF is a valid source, and removing it like to did is not complaint with WP:NOR . You only kept the answer of Canonical and en Fedora, which is a way of putting only one side of the argument and not the other one. Plus: FSF IS a reliable source, and it is NOT a primary source. A preimary source here is Miguel De Icaza or Novell. But even if FSF was a primary source, you misinterpret WP:NOR, which is to avoid to put invalid content, such as content put by editor themselves: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Which means that FSF (a valid source, let's say primary in your point of view) can be quoted, but that anhy interpretation must be done by secondary or tertiary sources. I think that you were too quick to delete this content, and thus I put it back. Hervegirod ( talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
FSF is a party to the controversy. In fact, they instigated it. The section is all about the controversy and the discussion between 2 primary sources on the controversy: FSF and Mono project. These are the primary sources and I don't see how you can spin it otherwise. Further, FSF is an ideological organization with clearly stated ideological goals. As such they have a conflict of interests with the stated goals of the Mono project. That makes them not a reliable source. As you said, any interpretation of primary source material (like e.g. statements and opinions by FSF or the Mono project) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. One which indicates that the secondary source has taken an unbiased look at the situation. The only paragraphs of the section which remotely resembled that were the references to evaluations by Canonical and Fedora. They are decidedly secondary sources (to the controversy between FSF and Mono). Whether they are reliable that's up for discussion. I'd say that they are. So far no other reliable secondary source has been referenced to support FSF's claims. Hence, WP:FRINGE (and WP:NOR) comes into play. As the statements are decidedly potentially harmful, they don't belong here. Deleted again. Feel free to delete the Canonical and Fedora statements if you can demonstrate why they should not be considered reliable. Useerup ( talk) 12:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The idea that Debian doesn't include Mono in its default install is a misnomer. The truth is that Debian's default install includes very little and one must install their own choice in Desktop software. Interestingly, if you install the 'gnome' package in Lenny, Squeeze or Sid (the 3 most recent versions of Debian), it pulls in Tomboy (which pulls in Mono). See here: http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gnome 130.57.22.201 ( talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also argue that the entire purpose of listing distributions that don't include Mono by default serves no purpose but to try to discredit Mono. Note that most Linux distributions don't include a lot of software by default (e.g. Apache), but you don't see those pages discussing how that software isn't included by default in distributions. Just something to think about. 130.57.22.201 ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that the lack of continued discussion for ~5 days suggests that everyone is fine with the way things read right now wrt the status of Mono in Fedora? ("... no legal conclusion ...") BrianRandal ( talk) 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Disclosure: I added this disclosure to the Talk:Moonlight page, but apparently forgot to add it here. So, for the sake of making this thread easier to follow, I was User:130.57.22.201 until I registered an account as User:Nigelj suggested on the Moonlight talk page. NovellGuy ( talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize this page was protected until I went to make this small change. Perhaps someone will do it for me. The word "leveraging" is slang with a slightly positive bias, so it would probably be best replaced with "incorporating", "using", or "making use of". (I prefer "using".) Now I'm off to read what I expect to be an entertaining Talk page. :) Maghnus ( talk) 16:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I am inserting one word -- "stated" -- in the introduction, to change "the purpose of Mono is" to "the stated purpose of Mono is". To forestall undue argument, here is an explanation.
We can rarely, if ever, know what somebody's true purpose is. But we can always tell what the stated purpose is, if the doer has stated it. Mono is a very controversial project, and many people have said many contradictory things about it. Simply describing the stated purpose of Mono keeps the assertion objective and non-controversial. It keeps Wikipedia out of the business of guessing anybody's private motivations. Rahul ( talk) 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The article claims that "Mono supports everything in .NET 4.0 except WPF, Entity Framework and WF, limited WCF". I don't think this is true, at least for the current release (Mono 2.8). Many applications using the Task Parallel Library (System.Threading.Tasks) fail, as do applications using System.Numerics.BigInteger for example. These are all part of .NET 4.0 so you cannot really say that Mono is .NET 4.0 compliant. Specifically the official release notes for Mono 2.8 claim that "many of the .NET 4.0 APIs have been implemented in mscorlib". It says "many", not "every" or "every ... except ...". "Complete .NET 4.0 Core Support" (with the exceptions as stated within the article) is announced for Mono 3.0, which has no announced release date. This is all from the project's roadmap page ( http://mono-project.com/Roadmap) and the release notes of Mono 2.8 ( http://mono-project.com/Release_Notes_Mono_2.8). I changed the formulation towards "Mono's aim is to achieve full support for the features in .NET 4.0 except ..." as the support is not complete yet. 141.82.19.233 ( talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added {{ citation needed}} to the pronunciation at the very beginning of the article. Every single person I've talked to about Mono pronounces it /ˈmɑ.noʊ/ ("maw-noh") and I haven't seen any reliable sources indicate which pronunciation is correct. -- Chris (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As there has been no discussion nor have any citations been brought forth for the pronunciation, I have removed it from the article. -- Chris (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You can write XNA based games for the Xbox 360, but my understanding was that this was a port of the CLR by Microsoft, and that it does not use Mono. It is possible the author meant to state that some other port of Mono's CLR can run on a modded Xbox 360(?). Either way, please cite a reference. Thanks. BrainSlugs83 ( talk) 10:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
According to https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Qyoto and empty repo with Qyoto/Kimono, Qyoto seems dead, so link was changed to QtSharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.207.246.126 ( talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mono (software). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Mono 5.4.1 Stable (5.4.1.7) has no support for Windows XP or Vista. Removed XP,Vista from the supported OS list. What was the last version compatible with XP?
The CLR is an implementation and the CLI is the standard. The article previously said that they are the same thing but there were no references. I changed it to say that the CLR implements the CLI and added references for them. The article currently says that the CLI is implemented by the CLR that is implemented by the Mono executable but I think that needs to be improved, the double implementation sounds strange to me. Sam Tomato ( talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have just updated the Stable release to the most recent stable release on https://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/. However, I am having some trouble finding the latest preview release. The preview release that was listed is wrong, so I have just removed the preview release section for now. Would appreciate it if someone added that back in. Thanks. Justanotherinternetguy 21:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)