The Community Promise is a step forward, but not big enough to close the issue. See the FSF comments on that. FSF doesn't have to be right on anything, but they have lawyers and that means they are probably more qualified in taking a stance regarding mono.

Finally, the CP is the proof of a need. So who said it was needed actually was right.
On a final note, applications like Banshee (for example) fall out of the cited ECMA specifications and shuold be considered actually not-safe.

Frankly, I'd advise you to find someone productive yourself instead of mindless bashing a whole category of people basing on your lack of understanding about the matter.

While it is true that Samba is reverse-engineered, that does change the fact that it could potentially violate patents. Microsoft has made no such agreement with the community regarding Samba and OpenChange. For all we know, these products are just as patent infringing as Mono or the Linux kernel. While Mono is a direct implementation of the ECMA standards, and not reverse engineered, it's still in the same camp as every other Microsoft product we have at our disposal. What about WINE- a Windows emulator. Per the Windows Vista and Windows 7 EULA, they are NOT to be virtualized or emulated in any form. WINE makes it possible to directly violate that agreement. What do you think Microsoft will do?

My point is this- we could spread FUD all day long on just about every last product GNU/Linux has deployed. Or, we could remain practical, realizing that many of these implementations are based on standards, and Microsoft just isn't interested in suing end users or developers. The only ones at any risk, whatsoever, would be companies, like Red Hat or Canonical. And yet, when Microsoft slings the FUD, we call it out, and wait and see. Year after year after year, nothing. And yet, we, meaning the community, throw out our own FUD at ourselves. How productive is that? Please. When the case of patent infringement is brought to the table by the patent holder, then let's look at the claims, and make the adjustments as needed. Until then, let's ditch this FUD slinging war, and get to work!

Second, in the software world, you're bound to violate patents. Did you know there's a royalty-based patent on popup windows? Everytime you call the JavaScript "alert()" function, you're violating that patent. There's no doubt in my mind that GNU and Linux both violate all sorts of software patents. However, without knowing the patent, how do you know you're violating them?

Third, I never mentioned anything about C# or .NET. I only specifically mentioned Mono. Mono is Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation. The question is not the freedom of Mono, but whether or not Microsoft will use its patents against the Free Software community, and here, we have WORD FOR WORD DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSES MOUTH that Micrsoft WILL NOT use the portions submitted to the ECMA against the community. If you are familiar with the Mono stack, and I am, you'll learn that the vast majority, and I'm talking roughly 90% of Mono, is based on the ECMA standard. For those parts that aren't, such as WinForms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, they are not required for use, when building a Mono application. Further, when using only the ECMA stack, your application will also run on the .NET platform.

Fourth, you stated yourself that you're waiting for proofs from Microsoft to back up their patent claims against the Linux kernel. Yet, you have no problem with tossing out Mono, although it falls under the exact same camp. Where's the proof? Where's the patent that Mono is infringing? If you're that eager to throw out Mono, when why not throw out the Linux kernel? Both SUPPOSEDLY infringe patents, but we have yet to see a single patent number from either project. Thus: Fear UNCERTAINTY and Doubt..

So, to use your words:

If they have proof there is a patent violation … then we will see.

On the enterprise server, Microsoft continues to struggle against Java. This is where the real money lies and, since the future of computing is in distributed computing and web applications, Microsoft would love to see .NET gain more traction. .NET is, after all, native to Windows and only partially (and unofficially) ported to competing platforms. If you were developing a web application using .NET, your IT group is much more likely to purchase a Windows box to run it on. And they would be right to do so. This is just an extension of .NET's attempt to fight Java on the server. And what hurts Java ultimately hurts Linux (and Solaris) on the server. Anything that promotes the use of C# or .NET over Java is ultimately a win for Microsoft, regardless of who is using it… and HOW they are using it.

While this argument mostly concerns Mono on the desktop, my point remains valid: Microsoft is attempting to gain credibility with developers by claiming that C# and .NET are somehow superior to Java (which it most certainly is not), and now hordes of free software developers — led by an increasingly self-defeating Canonical — will be drinking the kool-aid.

Extend, embrace, extinguish. This situation is no different, except that Microsoft has spent millions lobbying standards organizations to convince good people like yourself that they're just trying to play nice. Don't buy it.

"This was mostly a discussion that went into various different directions. The Ubuntu Code of Conduct came up and it was discussed how new users sometimes are a bit too diligent trying to enforce it on everyone else in the community. It was agreed that the CoC is a guideline on how people should conduct themselves and that it shouldn’t be used to through books at people, so to speak. Keeping users and developers motivated was also discussed, and the possibility of some kind of showcase of success stories from users around the world."

Ahem.

Does the community always assume that M$ is going to do the exact opposite of everything they say? They say they will sue for patents in the kernel and we don't believe them, then they say they are not going to sue for C# patents and we don't believe them. Sounds like spin city to me.

Like I said I am no expert just wanted to throw my thoughts out there. My logic may be all wrong my information may be all wrong, but I do not think I am spinning anything to make a point. M$ hates linux and they will find something to attack if they want to, they have the money to do that. Hell they could probably create someone to corporate espionage and put M$ code in a project just so they could sue.

It isn't the same as SAMBA anyway. SAMBA reverse-engineered the SMB/CIFS protocol, thereby opening up Windows networking to additional platforms. Mono does no such thing. All it does is create an additional platform for which to develop Windows applications. As soon as Microsoft decides to extend .NET away from its standardized base, Mono will wither and die.

Besides, as a developer, there's nothing in C# or .NET that is even worth my time or interest. It's a boring, cheap imitation of Java, that can't even get its garbage collector to plug up memory leaks. It's another pale imitation of innovation produced by a company that exists solely to gobble up competition.

Microsoft did NOT promise C# was free (as in freedom) to use. And even if it was in MS CP, there would still be cases when you could use Mono accordingly to their LGPL license and get sued by Microsoft for patent violation (if you embed a part of Mono in another project, which would be a partial implementation of C# and wouldn't be coverable by MS CP).

As for FAT / NTFS, I don't use them ! As for the 200 patent violations in the Linux kernel, I'm still waiting for proofs from Microsoft. Up to you to believe all the words they spread, I personally am a rational person and only relay on facts. If they proof there is a patent violation in the Linux kernel, then we will see.

By the meanwhile, Mono implements patented software without explicit agreement. I don't see what you don't get here, Aaron.