[Mono-list] FAQ additions - resubmitted v2.0

Miguel de Icaza miguel@ximian.com
10 Jul 2001 19:14:33 -0400

> 1. Why should we direct such considerable resources to such a marginal and 
> risky project? Aren't these precious resources better directed elsewhere?

I belive that it is a better platform for building applications (my
personal interest is creating better desktop applications, but others
might want to build web services).  

Ximian has decided to invest resources on this particular project.
And we would like to have others join us.  

Read the `Rationale' document for more information about our reasons. 

> 2. Can't MS thwart Mono by creating technical or intellectual property 
> roadblocks?

Maybe.  But it does not seem to be the case so far.

> 3. Don't existing open source projects offer capabilities equivalent to 
> .Net? Can't we use them instead of mono?

Yes.  You are free to use those.  

We are interested in the CLI because it will allow us to create a
common runtime for multiple languages to target, it makes multiple
languages share a class library, threading engine and garbage
collection system.

We have been dealing with these issues for some time in the GNOME
project, and we wanted to provide solutions to problems we see every
day.  The CLI and associated technologies do solve various problems we
see for the future growth of Linux on the desktop.

> 5. Why are RedHat, IBM and others refusing to directly support Mono with
> funding and public commitments? What do they know but won't say?

I can not speak for them.  But you can always ask them.

> 7. MS is releasing shared source on FreeBSD. Isn't it better to convert to 
> FreeBSD rather than fight the .Net battle? Isn't the gain in open vs. shared 
> source too small for such a major effort?

Shared Source does not give the freedoms that Free Software/Open
Source gives.   Please read the gnu web site. 

> 8. Isn't Mono a foil in negotiating .Net licensing for Linux? Won't mono 
> project be dropped if .Net for Linux is licensed?

If .NET for Linux is licensed under an Free Softwre/Open Source
license, then we might as well just use that version.  Until then, we
are buliding this.

> 9. Isn't Ximian already overburdened and under funded? How can you compete 
> with MS minions and billions?

We can not compete alone.  That is why this is a Free Software/Open
Source effort.

> 10. I thought Ximian redefined itself as a service provider, not a 
> developer? Didn't plan A already fail?

It seems you know more about Ximian than I do.  

> 11. Is the real purpose of Mono to counterpunch MS?

Read `Rationale'.  This is not about punches, it is about improving
the free software development platform.

> 12. Isn't Mono important only because .Net will be popular?

Different people have different motivations.  That might be one.

> 13. Is MS trying to bash Linux by offering .Net on BSD? Isn't it a divide 
> and conquer gambit? Is it really about licensing terms?

I think they are trying to do divide and conquer.  The licensing issue
is irrelevant in my opinion.

> 14. Do we really know if .Net achieves an acceptable performance
> level?

Go do some benchmarks, and come back to us.

I will now just focus on technical questions.