Some python/mono AB history [was: Time to heat up the new module discussion]

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

Thanks Jason for the summary.

I was on the Board during an Advisory Board meeting where the
higher-level languages issues came to the fore.  I think there may be a
common misunderstanding or two about the python/mono issues which ought
to be pointed out.

>       * Pro-Mono people are arguing: 
>               * Lots of cool applications and innovations are
> happening
>                 in the Mono camp. There's apps. like F-Spot, Tomboy,
>                 Beagle, and Banshee being written way faster than they
>                 could be in C. Anti-Mono folks generally agree but
> think
>                 that high level languages should only be used for
>                 prototyping (the benefits of RAD don't outweigh the
>                 cons).

I don't think the "Anti-Mono" folks are arguing against higher-level
languages.  Personally I think arguing against higher-level languages
(in "general") is pointless at this stage.

>               * Python is there, so why not Mono? Anti-Mono folks
> argue
>                 that - in some ways (Deskbar) - including Python was a
>                 mistake.

I think this is a serious misconception.  It may be a minority view, but
it isn't a consensus among those hesitant to include a Mono dependency
in the official GNOME 2.16 release.

In the Advisory Board meeting I am referring to, the
higher-level-language issue was seen as a very big deal, a "make or
break" issue for Gnome.  At the time, Java and Mono were both being
proposed, and the big issues were Java's freeness (or lack thereof), and
Mono's .NET heritage/possible IP issues/etc.  Call it politics if you
like, the discussion was not about technical issues.  Python was
proposed, and accepted in theory, as the higher-level environment that
was acceptable to all parties (if not the first choice of anyone at the
table).  In that respect, I don't think that Python's inclusion was
intended as a precedent for Mono or Java, but rather as something that
would defuse a potential "crisis".

In the meantime, things have changed a bit - there is arguably more
time/experience for lawyers to grapple with Mono IP issues (real or
imagined), or strategic issues of how a .NET technology might affect the
future of GNOME.  Great progress has been made with respect to Sun's new
LDJ Java licensing.  And Sun, at least, has agreements with MS which may
make .NET technologies more palatable to Sun.  I can't address the issue
of Sun's official "party line" towards Mono/C#/.NET integration in its
systems, but certainly for distros other than Sun I think the old
objections haven't been diluted much. 

>               * C#/Mono is a Microsoft invention and therefore it
> might
>                 be used as a weapon against GNOME. Pro-Mono folks
> point
>                 out that this has already been argued against many
> years
>                 ago and that the argument is closed.

But not everyone agrees or believes the argument is closed.  Just
calling it "FUD" is not helpful either, unless the goal is for things to
deteriorate into a flame war.  This is still a divisive issue and we as
a community should carefully weigh the benefit/cost of forcing the
issue.  IMO it requires more than one or even two "killer apps" (beagle?
f-spot?) to make it worth the pain.

>               * Mono is just like Java and, despite Java existing for
> a
>                 decade, no compelling desktop applications exist that
>                 run on Java. This shows that JIT platforms are
> generally
>                 too slow. Pro-Mono folks point out that the freeness
> of
>                 Java has been a factor but, despite this,
> GCJ/Classpath
>                 is progressing and some counter examples are Eclipse
> and
>                 Azureus.

I think the above argument is wrong on several counts.  It seemed very
clear to me over the years, and it was certainly a consensus in the
Board/Advisory Board meetings I attended, that Java's freeness was the
primary impediment to its adoption by Gnome in a meaningful way.  Now
that some of the freeness issues are being dealt with constructively,
it's probably too late.  On a pure-numbers basis there are lots more
free Java apps floating around than C# apps (though I would agree that
technical considerations might remain a barrier for Java).

My point is that this issue has been around awhile, and the most
important objections don't seem to be 'technical'.  I think the
'general' question to answer here is about what sorts of technologies
(with what licenses, from what sources, and with what potential
politico-legal pitfalls) we can accept as Gnome dependencies.

Having said this, I'd prefer if others continue the discussion (if
continue we must).

best regards,

Bill