Matthew Revell

There’s been some discussion, on various blogs and news sites, suggesting that we - the LugRadio guys - were hostile during our interview with Miguel de Icaza.

This has concerned me. Were we hostile? If so, did we appear to be hostile to Miguel, and not just some of the concerns surrounding Mono? During the recording, and after having listened to it several times, I know that we weren’t hostile to Miguel the man. It could be argued, though, that we were somewhat combative, at times, with regard to important reservations that people have about Mono.

I feel no regret that our interview with Miguel was a little boistrous and maybe asked questions that made him feel uncomfortable. It’s true, the interview wasn’t perfect but we asked him questions that we hear open source advocates ask all the time. Mono’s genesis in a Microsoft technology - ECMA approved or not - is a worry to many people. And why shouldn’t it be? Microsoft has employed some, shall we say, crafty techniques before, in the face of far smaller competition than that posed by open source.

Our interview may not have answered all the questions people have but it gave our listeners the opportunity to hear the Mono project leader’s thoughts, direct from his own mouth. Most importantly, though, we have encouraged debate. Debate is essential in all communities and particularly in ours, as it goes through a period where commercial interests offer both fantastic opportunities and unknown threats.