Talk:Mono (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Outdated March 2016[edit]

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 (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!

  • Criticisms generally tend to be towards specific details. They are subject to change with each version of Mono. There are no fundamental flaws with Mono, its a tool which has various applications, some with fewer compromises than others. (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (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. -- (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  • That this isn't FUD was proven by the Novell/Microsoft patent-deal which explicit covered Mono. Only Novell-customers where protected by that agreement. Since Mono isn't any longer with Novell the agreement doesn't apply any longer. The Community Promise isn't a replacement cause it allows revoking under certain conditions (filling or supporting in whatever way a law-suite against Microsoft). Now if revoking is possible there just exists a danger that the whole Mono-stack may be gone someday. Mono is very alone with this kind of problems and danger what is why no other FLOSS-project earns critics like Mono does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's like saying that getting flood insurance proves that your home is going to be flooded. BrianRandal (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary open source[edit]

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]

It is debatable whether the author of the first article does even have a point. He talks about GNU/Linux distributions and those having an "owner" in the context of Novell's acquisition of SUSE. But Novell did not acquire free software, it acquired a process and a team. Which makes the claim that the "proprietary open source" expression exists more doubtful. Also the article fails to realize one thing: all code produced is owned by someone unless explicitly left on the public domain (and GPL and LGPL software copyright is owned by the contributors to a given piece of code).
The second reference to the term "proprietary open source" comes from Bruce Perens in this article. And he uses it in a different context: support contracts for open source software (enterprise editions of software that people have to pay subscriptions to) and is no way related to Mono's open source nature.
The page that you reference is a page that you created in November and whose only two links in the whole Wikipedia were the Mono page and the .NET Framework page when refering to Mono.
There is a perfectly valid term that is used in the industry to refer to the practice that you refer to, and this is Dual license (see the page, it has various examples).
If you reach concensus with the projects mentioned in the Dual license page that they should be refered to as "proprietary open source" instead of dual licensed, you might have a point, but today you have singled out Mono for this label.

User: 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 and 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: 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)

User: doesn't seem to answer, so I'll do that instead. Mono's licensening FAQ ( says:
"When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.
Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back. "
Mono is commercial, yes. Mono is open source, yes. BUT Novell can decide to give you a version of Mono where you do not need to distribute the changes back (Which probably cost some $) . For me that sounds like you can get a proprietary version of Mono. - David Björklund (talk) 01:30, 22 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

Changed text so that it now mention the licensing of all different parts of Mono. There are quite a lot of open source projects that are, more or less, only driven by one company. The proprietary open source nature about Mono is because it's availible both under open source licenses and a proprietary.- David Björklund (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Portable.NET project: patents and licensing.[edit]

Hi User: 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)

Hi David Björklund. "Mono could have problems with licensing and patents, but to this day - nothing has happend." Doesn't that sound like a problem with licensing and patents? I think this should be said in a way or another. As the Portable .NET project is developed it a way that it doesn't have those problems at all - then it makes a difference? And then there is the part about why patents it is not a problem for Mono, doesn't this point that the licensing and patents are actually a problem for Mono development?
No. That sounds like they could have problems with licensing and patents - not that they have problems. Also I'd like to know how why (some sources) Portable.NET won't have any problems at all - it cover system forms, one of the problematic parts.- David Björklund (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there is not wether Portable.NET or Mono "could" have problems, the question is which project is using a license that makes IP claims an actual problem. I have emailed a Portable.NET developer, he answered me quiet quickly in contrast to what I could think as they work on the project in they free time.
"In the early days, mono's class library was still LGPL, it was then changed to the MIT X11 license and mono leads announced that, if Microsoft ever wants them to buy an IP license, they will do so[1] and *that* is the difference. Portable.NET is completly GPL(+linking exception)/LGPL, thus, even if the copyright holders ("Southern Storm Software, Pty Ltd" and the "Free Software Foundation") wanted to buy such a license, the (L)GPL(+linking exception) would not allow this. If you contribute code to mono's class library and assign the copyright to Novell, it is only free as long as Novell wants it to be free (if Microsoft claims IP on that implementation Novell announced to buy it, thus, turning your contributed code into proprietary software because the MIT X11 allows such action). It's not that the MIT X11 is a bad license, it's just that the LGPL would be a much better choice for a free software project that also wants to *remain free* in the future. With "MIT X11" licensed libraries it is possible for a proprietary software company to take a library (which was jointly developed by many companies and individuals), change it, and consider the modified version their proprietary library which they license only under restrictive conditions. This means that in the long run it could happen that contributions to Mono's class library (which is licensed under the MIT X11 license) might actually help proprietary software companies to compete successfully against Free Software, like DotGNU Portable.NET.
[1] "
Well, what is your opinion? Should we change the text to show that the project gives a lot of attention to the patents/licensing problems, shouldn't we?
The issue is a practical one. If a piece of code is found to infringe a patent it is up to the patent holder to set the terms and the rules for the use of his invention. So it is a primary directive of the Mono effort to abide by the law and if we are forced through a legal ruling to remove the code, we will remove the code. Such a ruling would also affect Portable.NET (and the same theoretical problem happens with all software: if you infringe on someone else's code, you must abide by their rules; if this is free software you would have to stop distribution of the infringing code no matter what license you picked).
If the Mono code is found to infringe on a patent, our intention is to negotiate with the patent holder, and if the terms are right, we could make the code that uses the patented invention available to those willing to abide by the terms impossed by the patent holder. The actual requirements would depend on the patent holder and the rules he wants to enforce. This means that Mono would have two editions: one that is completely free and does not infringe any code (removing the infringing code) and another edition that has the patented code available licensed under whatever terms the patent holder might impose on us. Open source/free software developers could continue to use Mono, without the infringing parts.
The difference is that Mono is in a position of offering two editions if we are ever forced to go down that path. Portable.NET on the other hand would be limited to remove the features and there would be no option to users of the system, even if they are willing to pay or license the patent, to make use of the software. This is detailed in the GPL section 7:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The steps that Mono took were taken precisely to avoid that problem: if we are found to be infringing, we will have to remove the code, but we are still allowed to make an edition that licenses the patents to those users and customers that need it. A GPL or LGPL implementation means that we would have to cut the option without being able to offer any remedial steps to any customers.
The quoted text is also missing a point: if Mono's code were at any point to become proprietary, anyone could continue developing the open source edition. This is the same situation that exists today with BSD or X11. If someone makes a proprietary version that does not stop anyone from maintaining the already existing open source code. Today people take pieces of Mono code and stick it into their projects, this is very common, as our license is very lax and they do not have to worry about infringing the GPL or the LGPL. They are allowed to do so. The fact that many people borrow Mono code and include it with their projects does not mean that Mono has to stop, we continue to develop code in the open, and we continue to release it as free software.-
Well, Microsoft's position appears to be that Mono is an unlicensed attempt to reverse-engineer .NET and since Mono aligns direct with Microsoft's own best key-tech interests, the risk any user may went into cause of the license and patent issues is still there.

Edits from DotGnu advocates.[edit]

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 has engaged on a mission to label Mono as "proprietary open source". He created a page for this oxymoron, and then linked the Mono article and the reference to Mono on the .NET article to it.
  • Mono is dual licensed software available under commercial and open source terms which bothers him.
  • He refuses to discuss on the talk page, despite the fact that the article text actually has a number of notices placed by another editor requesting that he engages in a discussion in the talk pages.
  • Instead of discussing on the talk pages, he resorted to removing my comments from the talk pages where I address this issue.
  • He re-introuces the expression or deletes my comments on the talk page using the "Restore objective information".
  • We know he reads the discussion page, because he edited the page and removed things he did not like, but refuses to discuss his edits.

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.

I concur. scot 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it's time for Arbitration, if that's what you meant. The way forward is to discuss differences in a civil, constructive manner here on this talk page. I've explained the ground rules at the top of this page. In addition, keep the other applicable policies of Wikipedia in mind: discuss proposed changes, cite sources, etc. The ground rules will be enforced vigorously; the actual contents of the article are up to you guys to sort out by working towards a consensus. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Behavior of user[edit]

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.

Not sure the title of this section is as intended. In any case, please stop posting to the administrators' notice board. Discuss your differences here instead: this page is being actively monitored. Remember that you can (and should) sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
To users MarkSweep and from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy [4]:"...Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus..." [krokas]

History section[edit]

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:

Removed info about user as it doesn't sound appropriated in the context.

Obviously there is some disagreement about the contents of the history section. The way to resolve this is, first, to recognize that there is disagreement and to stop reverting. Insisting that one version is right and another is wrong is not productive. If there are good arguments for one version or another, state them here on this discussion page and work toward a consensus. My own feeling is that a history section can't hurt. In fact, there is ample precedent for including a discussion of a platform's history (see e.g. Java programming language) to the extent that it is relevant. But that's not up to me to decide — you all will have to work that out yourselves, using the cutting-edge techniques of Reasoned Debate and Civilized Discourse. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The History sections remains, he just removed the early history and left a paragraph that does not even flow. The reason given to remove the text was this:
Removed info about user as it doesn't sound appropriated in the context. Kesla, do you understand the Miguel de Icaza just exploits you? At least can you think about this :(
Am interested in finding what is not appropriate about it, and what has "exploitation" got to do with this? It is telling to read the changes he did for his project here and the various previous versions. Am not going to bother correcting the statements there, but I find it useful to understand his motivations editing this page - 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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'm looking at [5] and specifically the sample chapter [6], which includes a brief history of Mono (page 7; page 9 of the PDF file). This includes a discussion of GNOME, Ximian, etc. and the role MdI played in these ventures. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That pretty much locks it up for me. Any other sources to add to that would be great. Although I generally think Miguel should avoid writing about himself, that material supports at the least including the material that was removed by 83.237. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear. I wrote the history-section, not de Icaza. I used this source for this (it's in the reference section on the main page). I was not aware of any other sources when I wrote it (even thought I searched for it) and the mentioned book seem to be a good complement. - David Björklund (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
User David Björklund says "...i wrote the history-section, not de Icaza. I used this source for this (it's in the reference section on the main page)..." Yes, it just proves another time that I was right to edit the history section. An internet maillist cannot be considered as a source of verifiable information [7]:
"...Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, teories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher..." I will ask the Wikipedia administration to remove the editing possibility to user David Björklund untill the time he shows a possibility to follow the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. [krokas]
The source of the information for the Mono wikipedia page that is refered is [8] and specifically the sample chapter [9] which only says that Miguel de Icaza has really started the Mono project. I ask that all the extra information that was added to the history section is removed. Until other sources of verifiable information than maillist are found please remove too the sections "Mono and Microsoft's patents" and "Software developed with Mono". Thanks. [krokas]
Well, as the creator of Mono, I can attest that the history as written by David Björklund is correct; It lacks details, there is a lot more that can be said, but it is correct. I was researching .NET in december 2000 here. In February 7th, I asked for the metadata information on the same list. I have corrected the sentence "Around Jan" to be more precise: "On February"
Considering that Mono is a project that has been developed in the open and in the internet, all of the sources of information will lead back to either mailing list archives, or the original people involved in it, like me.
As for actual demonstrations of the C# compiler, I showed it to a few people at the GUADEC conference in Denmark at the time - 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that the understanding of user krokas of the policies cited seems way off the mark. Such as WP:RS states Get close to the source. Well, when it comes to some item of software, you don't get much closer to the source than an official mailing list of the company or organization that created the software and which is inhabitted by the developers of same. I can't imagine trying to write about the Linux kernel while being told I could not use the kernel mailing list as a source and could not cite Linus Torvalds. That flat makes no sense to me.
Of course, WP:RS also discusses evaluating sources. and others directly involved in the project will, of course, have a bias. It's their "baby." So, yeah, a certain amount of caution is indicated. If, say, de Icaza proclaims Mono the best thing since sliced bread, that's not a terribly authoritative statement eh? Everybody thinks their baby is the best looking and smartest. <G>
The above policy also comments: "Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable." Well, the developers of the software were certainly "actually there." They are, point of fact, primary sources. The big question is the citation. Certainly a "citation" that amounts to someone claiming to be (sorry to pick on you here but...) in an alt.* heirarchy newsgroup is to violate WP:RS. There is, simply put, no good way to verify Usenet posts. They are too easily forged. Same for some random bulletin board. But a mailing list that orginates with Ximian (or Novell now is it?) is not a Usenet newsgroup nor some webby bulletin board. There is verifiability. You can check with the company to determine that the mailing list does, indeed, originate with them and is, indeed, used by their people. You can actually call people at the company and ask "did you write that?" This is a whole other critter than a Usenet post. For that matter, if we doubt that is the real Miguel de Icaza, I bet we could call his office and ask "are you really on the Wikipedia?"
I'm sorry but as so much software these days are creatures of the Internet and the creators are heavy users of email and other such online systems of communication to get their work done, demanding every single source be in print is a tad absurd. It would also make the Wikipedia itself rather pointless--notice it ain't in print?. Mark K. Bilbo 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (This unsolicited commentary and advice brought to you by the letter Q and the number 3F)

Page title: Mono (development platform)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe "Mono (software)" meets naming guidelines better. I'm gonna move it to that if I can. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Framework Architecture[edit]

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)

Primate = Mono ??[edit]

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)

Hey, that would explain why the project logo looks like an ape! Jason404 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FSF threatening to pull sales rights[edit]

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. 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More about this misquote be found on the talk page for Novell and there is this ars technica article. 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future content[edit]

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)

This seems like an odd place to ask that question, but I'll bite anyway. Looking at mono_string_is_interned_lookup in, it seems pretty clear that a hashtable is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mono project logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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 for windows are available, pls fix it[edit]

version for windows are available, pls fix it -- 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... --AlexOvShaolin 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Mono/C# programs compiled under Linux *appear* to be Windows programs, I suppose that is a valid characterization. I must say, I was astonished to find, on installing Gnome-Subedit, that it *appeared* to be a Windows executable with associated .dll files. It may be that the bytecode packaging for Mono/C# thingy's just LOOKS like a Windows program. It is amusing that it contains the canonical header text about not being runnable in DOS mode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, no. Although Mono does include an implementation of Windows.Forms, which is what most .Net programs written in Windows use as a GUI, the majority of such Windows/.Net programs -- those that weren't written with the goal of being cross-platform from the start, anyway -- seem to need some effort to port to Linux/Mono. It's much, much easier than porting Windows programs written in C++/MFC directly, but most of the time you can't just copy the executable and assume it'll work. And it works the other way round, too: the Tomboy note-taking application for Gnome is written in C#, but is very definitely a Linux application. It uses Gtk#, not Windows.Forms, and is well integrated into the Gnome desktop environment. It would probably be possible to port it to Windows if you really wanted to, but it would be a considerable effort. So Mono isn't just a way of running Windows apps in Linux -- it's being used quite a lot as a productive platform on which to write Linux applications. -- simxp (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no official port for OpenBSD[edit]

According to there is no official port for OpenBSD. Perhaps it is possible to install Mono on OpenBSD using pkgsrc (NetBSD package collection). (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:

  • the Boehm reference is a PARC fundamental paper about Garbage collection in general, and the Boehm algorithm. It does not imply that Boehm algorithm is dangerous !!
  • there are no hints on the Mono web site stating that the new prepared algorithm is not likely to be incorporated into production builds any time soon

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)

Maybe, but wikipedia policy is not to say: A has B, C is like A, so C has B. We still need to find sources saying that Mono's GC may lead to memory leak. Hervegirod (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mono project's contribution rules[edit]

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)

Merge references 15 and 17[edit]

References 15 and 17 are currently identical. They should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mono Structure shema[edit]

The schema, in PNG
The source schema, in SVG (fail on Commons)


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)

NPOV: Free Software Foundation's warnings[edit]

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)

This would be utterly POV. The section is OK as it is. The FSF is a major organization, they expressed specific concerns about Mono. Hervegirod (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The FSF have attacked things, from iphones to windows, what is the justification for including their comments about mono when we don't for those more mainstream products? Dave.hillier (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I should have noticed but the same points I'm trying to make here are in the Talk:Mono_(software)#Criticism section of this page. Dave.hillier (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Dave has a point as the FSF has a competing project (DotGNU/Portable.NET). Littering the Mono wiki page with attacks from a rival project's leader seems rather suspect and decidedly not neutral POV. Considering that Microsoft has been releasing more and more of their .NET extensions under Apache2, issued a Community Promise, and provided the Mono project with test suites, I agree with Dave that it should simply be removed.BrianRandal (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section today (651316) Dave.hillier (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Which gave you (Dave) a warning for vandalism. Read WP:NPOV all the way for me, and you can now tell that removing the section about the FSF would unbalance the point of view. I'm warning ya, don't mess up that section again! (I really mean it, being a FSF member myself.) (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Your statement doesn't even make sense (and what's with your threats on this article discussion page and on the Moonlight discussion page?). The bot reverted it because he deleted an entire section, not because it was *actually* vandalism. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is about how a consensus is reached (and so Dave *may* have been in the wrong deleting it, depending on what the policy is), but no arguments have been presented against removing it in over a month and so I'd imagine he was in the right. Of course, I'd be happy to read Wikipedia policy on that if someone had a link handy. Otherwise I'll go looking for it when I get the time. BrianRandal (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
My statement does make a lot of sense, if you look at it carefully. Any and all smears about the FSF are all FUD and the smearers are usually paid by Microsoft. Let me make it clear: ALL SMEARS AGANST THE FSF ARE JUST FUD!!!! The whole "Church of Emacs" thing just was a entire joke, they are not encouraging use of Open Source (because Free (libre) Software and Open Source are NOT the same, see [[10]] for more info. And, the FSF are not a big bunch of liars. They have a big point warning against the big patent trap that is called Mono, and that's why we (the FSF and me), encourage you NEVER to use Mono. (I don't use it myself, when I see it, I uninstall it.) (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
WTF? Are you threatening me? This is crazy! I've read the policy. This was not a warning. It was merely a bot which has heuristics to prevent vandalism. My interpretation of it, I'm doing the right thing. I've really got no idea what you are talking about!! You can move this entry to the FSF page. It's not suitable for the Mono page. I'm using parallels to things like DRM on Iphones. Dave.hillier (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote my statement about the smearing against the FSF all being FUD, I was REALLY irritated at the time, espically at the Mono apologists (including you, Dave). And Cluebot was doing the right thing by reverting your vandalism, which definitely qualifies as such. As for the warnings themselves, they belong on the Mono page, not the FSF page, as these warnings are about Mono (but a link to the warnings can be added on the FSF page, and that's what I'll do next). Really, just deal with it. (As a side note, I'm not really sure if talking these guys into having neturual pages...) (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please try to keep your comments civil by avoiding personal attacks, they do not help your cause. Also, for everyone's benefit, are you the same person as User: and User:Willimm? If so, could you please login when posting further comments? It would make following this discussion easier. Thanks. BrianRandal (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I am User:Willimm, but that's not the point. My point is, both of the statements above are not personal attacks, even through you treated them as such. If you read them closely, they are not attacks, but their little points of truth (like my first statement). So please just deal with it. (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've re-read the page on WP:NPOV again. I'm pretty sure that this section comes under opinion. It gives undue weight to the FSF. That is an assertion you may disagree with. There are no other sections that are opinion, just this one, therefore it is not balanced. Dave.hillier (talk) 20:07, 8 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)

Criticism is only worth a small mention, and especially only if it's FSF complaining about it. If nobody else sees it the same way as FSF, then that itself is interesting. If others do, then that makes it less of a fringe opinion, and multiple sources can be reported. If other sources report on FSF's criticisms, that makes the topic more worthy of mentioning. That seems to me to be how WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE works, vs WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Heck, just look to Wikipedia:Criticism for some guidelines. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea how to reduce this section to an appropriate size without removing it completely. I've tried too look for other reliable sources, but I've been unable to find them, it seems to be pretty much FSF view or commentary on that view. There is nothing independent of stallmans comment. I still think deleting the section is an appropriate action Dave.hillier (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Google are being sued for use of Java on Anroid by Oracle. There is no mention on the Java page. Yet .Net is safe from MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.hillier (talkcontribs) 21:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Oracle is suing Google over Java (even through they have a weak case, see both this Techdirt article and some thoughts from a Java developer for more info), but that doesn't automatically make .Net safe to use, unlike what de Icaza and Adobe would otherwise claim. The point is: the FSF is right about the patent troubles about Mono, and the warnings can stay. (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Dave's point was that it's ridiculous that Mono has a patent FUD section when other VMs like Java do not, even though they very clearly do (whereas with Mono, the best anyone can come up with is "omg, Microsoft is evil and we just *know* they're gonna sue!"). NovellGuy (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm really keen to get a resolution on this. It seems that there is a consensus reached, there are precedents. There is just one person who objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave.hillier (talkcontribs) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
NovellGuy, you work for Novell, and because of that should refrain from contributing on sensitive matters such as patents on this article. Hervegirod (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly why we should let someone with no strong feelings towards Mono decide if the warnings should stay or not. (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hervegirod, my only comment on this matter so far has been to explain what I thought Dave was trying to say (which he confirmed in a followup comment). NovellGuy (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think more relevant is that no piece of software is "safe" from patents and that singling out Mono is silly and disingenuous. Mono is also not any more likely (and arguably less likely, thanks to the Microsoft Community Promise) to be sued over patents than any other software out there. By having an entire section devoted to vague patent fears around Mono, it suggests that Mono is somehow uniquely susceptible to patent attacks when this is simply not the case. BrianRandal (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it peculiar that the FSF is cited as suggesting that developing in C# is "dangerous" in this article given the the FSF (qua The GNU Project) supports DotGNU, which includes a C# compiler, as well as other elements which are parallel to Mono. Is C# somehow dangerous in Mono yet safe in DotGNU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
All of these comments are WP:POV, and perfectly OK in the talk page, but not OK if not sourced properly in the article. Also the FSF did issued these warnings. We don't have the right to judge if the patents fears are vague or not, because FSF is a reliable and important source on open Source and software patents matters. Concerning the "Since the FSF's GNU Project simultaneously hosts DotGNU, a similar free software replacement for .NET, it's unclear how Mr. Stallman's stated position can be reconciled with support for DotGNU and simultaneous opposition to Mono", it's very much WP:OR, unless it is backed by a reliable source, and as such should be deleted if no reliable source can be found to support it. As such, it is putting two facts A (FSF supporting DotGNU)and B (FSF warning against Mono), and (more than) imply C (inconsistency in FSF position toward .NET), which is not sourced in the article, something wikipedia advise not to do. To quote: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Hervegirod (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to clear up some confusion, after Stallman's warnings, DotGNU is not developed actively. So the FSF's option as a whole is firm: C# is not safe to use. It is my opinion also, but I don't want to be attacked just for saying that. (BTW, I am the same as User:Willimm) (talk) 21:14, 15 October 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):

  1. FSF is an ideological organization. Their cause may be noble, but FSF by own definition exists to promote the computer user freedom where "freedom" has a very specific meaning. This "warning" section is sourced by FSF themselves. This is the equivalent letting Microsoft put warnings about possible patent infringement into articles about Linux: They may be right but we will not take their words for it. When Microsoft identifies those patents and someone outside MS has examined those patents and offered an opinion that there may be a problem, then it would be proper to mention the issue with an equally prominent sized section. Not before then. Allowing these comparable claims from an invested party is POV. In neither case has the perceived patents been identified. The claims themselves are unproven and contested.
  2. The perceived threats are general in nature but used against a specific product. Even if Microsoft has patents on XML parsing/generation and/or regular expression processing and those Mono infringes on those patents, this claim completely overlooks the fact that software patents are not language or platform specific. Such a patent would equally well threaten a Java XML implementation or any other implementation. FSFs claims lack justification for being leveraged against this one product in particular. The claims seems more to be part of a campaign against software patents and FSF has not demonstrated more specific threats to Mono than to any other comparable software technology. Because the perceived threats are general they do not belong as an entire section here. Useerup (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FSF a primary or secondary source?[edit]

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. (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)

If all 3 of the biggest Linux vendors take up the position that Mono is fine legally, then who's to say that it isn't the most widely held position? The way things were before, it would appear (based on volume of content) that the FSF's views were more widely held than any other, but with all 3 of the biggest Linux vendors taking the opposite position, this seems not to be the case. Due weight would suggest that Useerup's modification is the correct way to deal with this. BrianRandal (talk) 15:18, 10 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)

Removing all this content about FSF is highly [WP:POV]]. I don't agree at all on how you proposed to deal with it. The only mention is "Following a controversy between the Mono developers and the Free Software Foundation, Canonical Ltd., makers of the Ubuntu Linux distribution", and nothing more. Quoting the Wp:NPOV aticle: "However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." You only present now one Point of view, which is what I consider biased writing. So No, I don't agree. And consideringFSF point of view as fringe needs to be demonstrated, which you did not for the moment. Some links of other sources: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. So much about fringe theories. Plus it seems that news were more keen to present the two sides of the argument. There is only one now, which is highly POV. Hervegirod (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Those sources merely confirm the existence of the FSF's opinion. They belong in an article about the FSF, not one about Mono. Dave.hillier (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
No, FSF is a primary source on the controversy and so is Mono/Miguel d'Icaza. Allowing this section to quote extensively from any of these sources on this controversy violates WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. As they are also mostly opinions on what could happen if... they are also not verifiable WP:VERIFY. Especially so because there appears to be no independent, reputable legal scholars who will back up the FSF concerns. If the FSF concerns is a widely recognized stance we should be able to find reliable secondary sources to quote from instead. At this time the only secondary sources which could be considered reliable (someone who has taken at look at the claims with no direct vested interest for or against) are in fact Canonical and Fedora. I have read your alternate sources, and except for the last one (SJVN) they are merely reporting on the controversy, hence they can be used as reliable sources that the controversy exists, but they can not be used as reliable secondary sources to validate neither FSFs nor Miguel d'Icazas claims. SJVN offers his own opinion on another issue (MS "opening up" the .NET Framework source code) and then offers his opinion on MS patents but does not offer validation either. This controversy is certainly notable enough to deserve being mentioned. However, the claims of the controversy are not and would violate WP:UNDUE. So to sum up: That a controversy exists is certainly verifiable. The specific claims are not. Useerup (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I just added a POV tag on the relevant section because I dispute the neutrality of this section. Not even putting any source about what the controversy is, and only quoting one side of the argument, is, as I already wrote, highly POV. ~~
Removed. It is a new section now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should source the controversy in some way. However, it cannot be the goal to present the primary sources and secondary sources with equal weight. As it stands, the FSF claims are speculative ("what happens if MS decides to..."). This alone makes the content of the claims not verifiable. That the claims (and counterclaims) have been put forward is certainly verifiable. I will try to work in some careful references. Useerup (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but currently the reader will even don't know what the controversy is. That the FSF claims something does not make the content speculative, especially with the way the "controversy" is presented (and I'm not kidding here, because I thing that the wording is good). What the FSF states is just an opinion, exactly as Canonical (however, one could say that Canonical themselves are not secondary sources, because as they state in their position, they depend on Mono). I'm not against giving more weight to those who don't have the same point of view as FSF, and I even agree that the text before was too much geared toward the FSF position, but it is now the opposite IMO. I only think that now FSF position has 0 weight, and that is what I consider POV. BTW, Canonical statement is from July 2009, but the FSF statement concerning TomBoy is from July 2010, so as it is the text is a bit cryptic. And concerning Canonical, their CTO had a strange position (much more cautious from the "official"). He said "With regard to Mono, I think it is a valuable piece of free software for us to have. However, there are risks involved in choosing the .NET platform to develop free software, because it is under the ultimate control of Microsoft. Microsoft could take advantage of this to attack free software in various ways. This would be a logical act of self-preservation, and consistent with their previous actions and statements of intent." (see this interview in April 2010) Hervegirod (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
No one is denying that the FSF has a position on Mono or what it is. The FSF have positions on many different companies and software projects. Put it in the FSF article. Dave.hillier (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mono in Debian[edit]

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: (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Doh. It appears that I was wrong about Lenny (Tomboy is only a recommends, not a depends), however and both list Tomboy as depends for the gnome metapackage. (talk) 18:16, 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. (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That thought did cross my mind as well. I'd also point out that just because a distro doesn't include Mono doesn't mean that it was somehow purposely rejected over patent concerns (which is the implication pushed in the wording/positioning in the article). The comment about how Fedora is replacing Mono apps serves as a perfect example of this. If you read the email [Gnote in F12], it seems to me that they replaced Tomboy with Gnote so that they could fit it on the LiveCD. That's a far cry from the insinuation that they are removing Tomboy over patent concerns. It should also be noted that F12 still shipped with F-Spot installed by default in their DVD image (didn't fit in the LiveCD) which is yet more evidence that the move was not out of patent fears. F13 replaced F-Spot with Shotwell, but again, no reason to suspect it was over patent fears. Shotwell could simply have fit their user's needs better than F-Spot. Apps get replaced all the time with newer apps that have more active development. BrianRandal (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think they did it for both reasons (that because Mono is bloated and because of patent conserns.) And I highly encourage more removal of Mono applications. (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support this theory of yours? The statements made by the Fedora Project leader contradict you. BrianRandal (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Your unsubstantiated beliefs are not enough to pawn off as factual on Wikipedia, sorry. (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not right. Fedora did have some legal concerns about Mono (see [16] for more info), and possibly because someone at RedHat or Fedora read the warnings. So, please note that Fedora removed Mono for both reasons. (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
We haven't come to a legal conclusion that is pat enough for us to make the decision to take mono out doesn't support your argument. NovellGuy (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, that quote did come from that article, but it doesn't mean that they are not going to remove Mono entirly. And, they probably are going to remove mono. Willimm (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's all fine and dandy, but doesn't prove one way or another that they are removing Mono over patent concerns. That is a figment of your imagination based on the evidence provided. Perhaps you can find evidence to support your claims, but so far you haven't provided any. NovellGuy (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, Ubuntu is getting rid of F-spot in 10.10 and replacing it with shotwell, see [17] for info. As for Mono, well, they arn't getting rid of Mono yet, but then again, things could change. Just note that I just want the page to stay the same way that I made it before the admin comes. Willimm (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you hadn't heard, but Ubuntu 10.10 Netbook Edition is replacing Rhythmbox with Banshee. If they are removing Mono over patent concerns like you insinuate, then why are they *adding* a new Mono app? And *why* did they add GBrainy (another Mono app) in 10.4? Your claims do not reflect reality. NovellGuy (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I have heard, from reading Techrights. But I really don't know why they added GBrainy to the mix (brain games aren't needed much anyway, and I'd wish it was ported to C++), and replacing the perfectly good Rhythmbox with faulty and only-safe-to-use-by-Novell-consumers Banshee on a NETBOOK operating system, hello? Both things are stupid desitions, and I'd rather see them removed before 10.10. (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that you and NovellGuy have reached a consensus? Do you agree that your assertions are unfounded and that the article should stay as it is? BrianRandal (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The consensus appears to be that 1) notable people have expressed licensing and patent concerns, but 2) there is no authoritative source stating unequivocally that packages have been removed because of those concerns (hence the words such as "probably", "possibly", and "could"). Maghnus (talk) 18:10, 7 August 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: until I registered an account as User:Nigelj suggested on the Moonlight talk page. NovellGuy (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Leveraging" is slang and slightly POV[edit]

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)

Hmm the protection has expired, so I have removed the editprotected tag here and made the change. Maghnus (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if "leveraging" is slang. It's even used in boring business terminology "leveraged buyout". Just thought I'd mention that in passing. A great weekend to everyone. Gronky (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"stated purpose" vs "purpose"[edit]

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)

I agree with that change, but it makes me wonder. Adding "stated" does imply a certain amount of suspicion. Take for another example: The goal of the GNU project is to give freedom to software users. After 27 years of consistent work, I don't think anyone doubts that this is the goal of the GNU project. Someone could add "stated", with the same reasoning as you give here, but in the case of the GNU project it would be bit disingenuous. What's the difference? Should we add references in the case of Mono to show that quite a few people doubt that Novell is completely honest about the goals? (I'm not planning any change, and mightn't return for a few weeks, but thought I'd mention it in passing.) Gronky (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Good points, and yes, "stated" implies some suspicion. However, usually the "stated" prefix reflects the lowest level of suspicion. In more suspicious cases we might write "claimed" or "ostensible", e.g., "The ostensible purpose is ..." Quite likely, in the early days of the GNU project(s), many people used such words. (Actually, in the very early days of GNU, nobody cared. Only techy magazines, like "Computer Language" and "Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics and Orthodontia" even ever mentioned it. Few people even had ftp access to anything. But a time did come when people did start caring and doubting and even buying ads and making press releases.) After 27 years of Mono, perhaps we won't need to write "stated". But still, I would see no problem with using the "stated" prefix when describing the GNU project(s). Rahul (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"Stated" or not "stated" doesn't really matter too much, but if it's a worry, why not say something like "When starting the project the developers of Mono described its purpose as ..."? There is already a citation for that claim, it's factual, and avoids Wikipedia drawing inferences. Kiore (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's a good idea. Hervegirod (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The longer "...the developers of Mono described its purpose as..." alternative would be fine somewhere in the text after the introduction. However, I think it would add too much text to the introduction, which ought to be kept brief. If you do a web search for the phrase "stated purpose", you will see that it's very commonly used in idiomatic English to refer to the apparent purpose of anything, e.g., an organization or a statute, without implying any great degree of suspicion, while still making it clear that the writer is not claiming any special insight into the true purpose of that thing. In other words, writing "stated purpose" is about as close as we can get to finding a two-word synonym for the longer form "...the developers of Mono described its purpose as...". Rahul (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mono supports "everything"?[edit]

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 ( and the release notes of 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. (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems more in line with the project as it is today, thanks Hervegirod (talk) 22:55, 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)

The closest thing I can find is the Mono FAQ which states, "Mono is the word for 'monkey' in Spanish. We like monkeys." However, it's not uncommon for names adopted from words in other languages to differ in their pronunciation from the source word. In my experience people pronounce it differently, but that's WP:OR -- and to avoid the OR problem, we need a reliable source. --Chris (talk) 23:14, 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)

Mono support for Xbox 360 is missing a reference[edit]

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)

Qyoto seems dead[edit]

According to and empty repo with Qyoto/Kimono, Qyoto seems dead, so link was changed to QtSharp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)