[Mono-list] Xamarin 2.0 concern

[Andres G. Aragoneses]

To expand on the good reply from Robert:

Unity3D is a propietary product that uses Mono under the hood but 
doesn't mention it in the name either, should we be angry with them too? 
And if not, why then requiring Xamarin what others have not respected?

Also, this is a mailing list about an open source project: Mono. If you 
have any concerns about the business model of Xamarin, go complain (or 
rather, suggest*) on their channels (such as the forums, their email 
address, or UserVoice) ;)

Cheers,

   Andres


* Like I did here: http://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/comment/5544


On 24/02/13 14:23, Dimitar Dobrev wrote:
>      Doug,
>
>      Companies do rebrand but as I've outlined, in this case rebranding
> doesn't make sense. The reasons it doesn't make sense have to do with your
> negative associations.
>      "Discarded by Linux" - for years Ubuntu, the most popular Linux
> distribution, had had Mono applications (and of course, Mono itself)
> preinstalled. Even after they removed these (as far as I know, mostly
> because of the applications themselves and not because of their Mono
> dependencies) they continued adding the latest stable Mono to their
> distribution channels so that anyone can easily install it. And this is just
> Ubuntu, about which I know for sure, while I think that other distributions
> such as Debian do that too. I think what you mean by "discarded" is some
> Linux people who condemn Mono just because its specification was initially
> created by Microsoft. But there will always be such people (just like there
> will always be people who think that anything above C is bloated) and I am
> certain the Mono team has learned in ten years that they cannot be pleased
> anyway. About those people who dislike Mono but would change their mind -
> well, such a "rebranding" will only increase their dislike, not the other
> way around.
>      "Second class citizen" - in many ways the same; some people who repeat
> this without thinking. People, who do not understand that Mono actually
> lacks few, and non-crucial pieces; who do not understand that almost no
> projects use ALL of .NET; who cannot see other GUI tool-kits besides WPF.
> Most of these people are again a group that would repeat the same no matter
> what.
>      "abandoned by Novell" - this point makes sense and I don't feel like
> arguing; but as you've already seen I've mentioned who had a hand in that
> abandonment.
>      Furthermore, even if I hadn't argued about these negative associations
> what about the positive ones? That because of Mono, developers can run their
> both existing and new code on Linux, OS X, iOS, Android? You do realise that
> changing a name does not remove only the negative associations, it removes
> ALL of them. This is exactly what I meant by saying ""Mono" is your
> marketing message". Finally, about the legacy of Moonlight being a problem.
> First of all, I doubt that many people have even heard of it, and second of
> all, Moonlight, while a bit behind at the time, was only abandoned because
> Silverlight itself was abandoned. In case Moonlight had any negative impact,
> let me add that back when Microsoft and Novell signed the Moonlight deal,
> Microsoft imposed the condition that the Mono team should first write
> Silverlight 1.0 - the version with JavaScript and XAML - an absolutely
> useless piece of software, thus only wasting Mono developers' time.
>      About the code on github - I don't even understand why you wrote that. I
> know it's there, I know it wont' be removed. What I'm worried about is, in
> the light of these events, for how long it's going to be updated.
>
>
>
>      Stifu,
>
>      Besides all said above, I would argue a bit further on these names.
> Clarity - "for Android" could not be clearer, even the old "Monodroid" was
> clear enough to me; "Touch" -yes, a bit vague but at the time MonoTouch was
> initially released there was only one widely distributed touch platform.
> About consistency - "Mono" is present in both names, I cannot see how more
> consistent it can get. Anyway, I'm not saying they should've necessarily
> kept these names, I'm saying they should've kept "Mono" in them.
>
>