Talk:Mono (software)

message: 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 143.159.76.87 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated March 2016 

message: 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)
thread_title: mono

message: 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.79.65.160.45 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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. --User:Miguel.de.Icaza
:I concur.  scot 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits from DotGnu advocates. 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page title: Mono (development platform) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Framework Architecture 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hey, that would explain why the project logo looks like an ape!  Jason404 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primate = Mono ?? 

message: 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. 194.151.95.22 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More about this misquote be found on the talk page for Novell and there is this ars technica article. 138.202.246.27 10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSF threatening to pull sales rights 

message: 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)
replies: text: This seems like an odd place to ask that question, but I'll bite anyway. Looking at mono_string_is_interned_lookup in http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/viewcvs/trunk/mono/mono/metadata/object.c?view=markup, it seems pretty clear that a hashtable is used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.77.51 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future content 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mono project logo.svg

message: version 1.2.5.2 for windows are available, pls fix it
--195.113.141.213 09:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  version 1.2.5.2 for windows are available, pls fix it 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  purpose 

message: According to http://mono-project.com/Mono:BSD there is no official port for OpenBSD. Perhaps it is possible to install Mono on OpenBSD using pkgsrc (NetBSD package collection).
85.222.21.198 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no official port for OpenBSD 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mono project's contribution rules 

message: References 15 and 17 are currently identical.  They should be merged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge references 15 and 17 

message: Hello,
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)
thread_title:  Mono Structure shema 

message: 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: http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gnome  130.57.22.201 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh. It appears that I was wrong about Lenny (Tomboy is only a recommends, not a depends), however http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome and http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnome both list Tomboy as depends for the gnome metapackage. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Your unsubstantiated beliefs are not enough to pawn off as factual on Wikipedia, sorry. 130.57.22.201 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not right. Fedora did have some legal concerns about Mono (see  for more info), and possibly because someone at RedHat or Fedora read the warnings. So, please note that Fedora removed Mono for both reasons. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Well, Ubuntu is getting rid of F-spot in 10.10 and replacing it with shotwell, see  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mono in Debian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Leveraging" is slang and slightly POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  I think that it's a good idea. Hervegirod (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "stated purpose" vs "purpose" 

message: 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 (http://mono-project.com/Roadmap) and the release notes of Mono 2.8 (http://mono-project.com/Release_Notes_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. 141.82.19.233 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems more in line with the project as it is today, thanks Hervegirod (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mono supports "everything"? 

message: I have added  to the pronunciation at the very beginning of the article.  Every single person I've talked to about Mono pronounces it  ("maw-noh") and I haven't seen any reliable sources indicate which pronunciation is correct.  --Chris (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mono support for Xbox 360 is missing a reference 

message: According to https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Qyoto and empty repo with Qyoto/Kimono, Qyoto seems dead, so link was changed to QtSharp.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.207.246.126 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qyoto seems dead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mono (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070223081128/http://blog.ubiquityhosting.com:80/?p=34 to http://blog.ubiquityhosting.com/?p=34
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The CLR is an implementation and the CLI is the standard. The article previously said that they are the same thing but there were no references. I changed it to say that the CLR implements the CLI and added references for them. The article currently says that the CLI is implemented by the CLR that is implemented by the Mono executable but I think that needs to be improved, the double implementation sounds strange to me. Sam Tomato (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CLR is not the CLI 

message: Hello. I have just updated the Stable release to the most recent stable release on https://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/releases/. However, I am having some trouble finding the latest preview release. The preview release that was listed is wrong, so I have just removed the preview release section for now. Would appreciate it if someone added that back in. Thanks. Justanotherinternetguy 21:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview release