Old mono rants

[loell]

@neighborlee

there are different ways to support the anti-mono advocacy,

the productive ways are,

1. to encourage people to use the non-mono equivalent apps.
2. write software to compete with those mono apps.


sadly, there are unproductive ways too.

like resurrecting a very old thread that dates back from 2006, while recycling the past points that has already been raised in this thread.

[23meg]

Your are free to offer proof of boycotnovell myths if you wish,

http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2008/02/lots-of-gnomemono-fud-lately.html

but now that this thead has been moved, maybe that threat wont exist for you anymore, and maybe that should tell me something about the freedom that ubuntu ( or lack thereof) really represents

Indeed it should. In most forums, the thread would just have been closed. Here you're granted the freedom to beat the dead horse if it makes you feel good.

[bruce89]

Take my advice : ignore all that call it "MONO".

[saulgoode]

I don't understand why this was moved to Recurring Discussions. The topic does not fit any of the bullet points in the Forum description, nor is it listed as one of the candidates in the stickied thread.

[PmDematagoda]

I don't understand why this was moved to Recurring Discussions. The topic does not fit any of the bullet points in the Forum description, nor is it listed as one of the candidates in the stickied thread.

This is because, as I stated previously, this topic was discussed heavily in the Development section so the points raised here are recurring hence the move.

[ice60]

here's the week's most popular article on fsdaily.com. it's typical of the stuff they have there.
http://www.fsdaily.com/EndUser/Make_Your_Distro_Free_of_Miguel_de_Icaza_8217_s_ju nk_code

i don't like fsdaily. i don't like the fsf either :lolflag:

[ghindo]

Direct link:

http://tuxtraining.com/2008/05/17/make-your-distro-free-of-miguel-de-icazas-junk-code/

For a second there, I thought this was going to be yet-another-anti-GNOME thread. :p

[Riffer]

ok what is mono-comman and why should w get rid of it?

[perce]

I really don't get it. According to the experts, most software, free or not, infringes someone else's patents. So why is everybody happily going to install MP3 support, Windows codecs and fonts, libdvdcss, programs with progress bars (yes, that is patented too), pirate Adobe CS3 under Windows, and then freak out for Mono and moonlight (where it is not even clear if it infringes any patent at all)?

[madjr]

i don't want anything from M$ but this may be a bit exaggerated ?

i don't use mono, moonlight, tomboy or f-spot (i prefer gthumb anyway).

[vexorian]

Stop caring about patents in Linux, I really think that civil dissbedience towards the software patent laws is the way to go now, just worry about proprietary vs. non-proprietary.

Regarding Mono, the real problem is but a practical one, why are we promoting/using what's basically a lead pony (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2445) for .net . What we should be doing is innovate, not imitate, and making everything depend on MS innvented technology doesn't sound smart to me.

[hanzomon4]

It's not like mono is taking away from innovation on the Linux desktop. Besides tomboy, beagle, banshee!!!! They rock hard...

[FuturePilot]

not this Mono discussion again.....

[jrusso2]

Poor Miguel, I remember when he was a Linux hero, now demoted to Linux Zero because he likes Microsoft.

[Frak]

not this Mono discussion again.....
Guess what... YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT!!!

Yet another Mono thread.

[-grubby]

not this Mono discussion again.....

+1

Guess what... YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT!!!

Yet another Mono thread.

I'm sure he will

[FuturePilot]

Guess what... YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT!!!

Yet another Mono thread.

That made me lol :lolflag:

[hanzomon4]

I just want to know if he was being cute by calling it mono which is common slang for an infectious disease...

[loell]

a very nice how to :lolflag:

it should be added in the tips and tutorials section :popcorn:

[tbroderick]

I just want to know if he was being cute by calling it mono which is common slang for an infectious disease...

No.

[madjr]

I just want to know if he was being cute by calling it mono which is common slang for an infectious disease...

Mono means monkey in spanish

that's why the logo is a monkey

[hanzomon4]

I'm joking folks,

But really after all of these mono threads no one thought about mononucleosis. I mean it's pretty damn ironic, and funny.

[karellen]

](*,)

[3rdalbum]

Maybe Miguel de Icaza only has one testicle?

Seriously though, it's not "junk code", it's just a compatibility layer for .NET. But I agree that it shouldn't be used for Linux-only applications - that's just shooting yourselves in the foot!

[loell]

Maybe Miguel de Icaza only has one testicle?


:lolflag:

[p_quarles]

Moved to Recurring Discussions.

Please be respectful toward Mr. Icaza, even if you don't agree with his decisions.

[eragon100]

Booooorrrinnnggg!

zzz zzz zzz :lolflag:

[vexorian]

Poor Miguel, I remember when he was a Linux hero, now demoted to Linux Zero because he likes Microsoft.
Seriously though he deserves it.

Please be respectful toward Mr. Icaza, even if you don't agree with his decisions.


All the respect I had left for the guy vanished after this:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Apr-02.html

[Frak]

Seriously though he deserves it.




All the respect I had left for the guy vanished after this:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Apr-02.html
I'm sorry that bringing operability to Linux was such an evil thing to do.

[karellen]

someone please put this thread out of his misery...

[hanzomon4]

I'm not making fun of the man, I like mono..

[quinnten83]

I'm not making fun of the man, I like mono..

Dude,
saying that around these here parts will get yer tarred and feathered!

[Frak]

Dude,
saying that around these here parts will get yer tarred and feathered!
I like Mono, Moonlight, and OOXML translator too.

[Kinst]

This is the guy that created gnome you know.

[cardinals_fan]

This is the guy that created gnome you know.
Which is my only real problem with him.

[Frak]

This is the guy that created gnome you know.
And I thank him for it.

[FuturePilot]

I'm not making fun of the man, I like mono..


I like mono too.

And I thank him for it.

+1

[quinnten83]

I don know if I like mono or not, I just like to use the pretty applications without steve or bill trying to put their grubby little hands on it and keeping me in a choke hold unless I pay them money.
Also I don't want it be illegal. My understanding is that if you use mono these freedoms can not be guaranteed as mono references MS proprietary stuff. This is the only thing that scares me.
There are certain things i don't like, not because they aren't open source, but because they support MS's bullying practices. But I am pragmatic enough to realize that there are certain things I will use because they are convenient.

I like Miguel de Icaza though, because his name sounds cool!
I will name my sons Miguel, maybe even my daughters.

[hanzomon4]

"It's Mya"
"It's Mya"
"Miguel"
"Miguel"
"Brothers and Sisters, It's Mya Miguel"

[days_of_ruin]

"It's Mya"
"It's Mya"
"Miguel"
"Miguel"
"Brothers and Sisters, It's Mya Miguel"
:lolflag:

[alternatealias]

I really don't get it. According to the experts, most software, free or not, infringes someone else's patents. So why is everybody happily going to install MP3 support, Windows codecs and fonts, libdvdcss, programs with progress bars (yes, that is patented too), pirate Adobe CS3 under Windows, and then freak out for Mono and moonlight (where it is not even clear if it infringes any patent at all)?

Because the people who freak out about Mono are hypocrites.

[alternatealias]

Stop caring about patents in Linux, I really think that civil dissbedience towards the software patent laws is the way to go now, just worry about proprietary vs. non-proprietary.

Regarding Mono, the real problem is but a practical one, why are we promoting/using what's basically a lead pony (http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2445) for .net . What we should be doing is innovate, not imitate, and making everything depend on MS innvented technology doesn't sound smart to me.

Tell me oh great leader (who insults free software developers every chance he gets), what software innovations have you made?

Oh, that's right. None.

[neighborlee]

This is because, as I stated previously, this topic was discussed heavily in the Development section so the points raised here are recurring hence the move.

I think its moved where most people wont see it , thus in effect the debate is dead; unless of course we have some clever users that use search to find things but I suspect many dont bother, they just use their OS and dont have time to go hunting, but thats just my take on it.

I feel it is similar to the mcCain stance on the 'debates' ;) < if your keeping up on politics that is>

cheers
nl

[cardinals_fan]

I think its moved where most people wont see it , thus in effect the debate is dead; unless of course we have some clever users that use search to find things but I suspect many dont bother, they just use their OS and dont have time to go hunting, but thats just my take on it.

I feel it is similar to the mcCain stance on the 'debates' ;) < if your keeping up on politics that is>

cheers
nl
I doubt if people who "just use their OS and dont have time to go hunting" care much about Mono. But maybe I'm crazy.

[vexorian]

Tell me oh great leader (who insults free software developers every chance he gets), what software innovations have you made?

Oh, that's right. None.
Hey i just found your post. It would be very easy to ask you or Miguel if you did anything innovative besides pushing MS IP on Linux. But I won't as you can see, such things are irrelevant. The fact I have not yet made any major contribution to free software is not relevant at all. It does not make my argument any less true, it does not prove that article wrong. In other words, my argument stands, while yours has become just a personal attack.

I really don't get it. According to the experts, most software, free or not, infringes someone else's patents. So why is everybody happily going to install MP3 support, Windows codecs and fonts, libdvdcss, programs with progress bars (yes, that is patented too), pirate Adobe CS3 under Windows, and then freak out for Mono and moonlight (where it is not even clear if it infringes any patent at all)?

It is funny, cause ubuntu does freak out about even including those things on repos, has to use a restricted repository. Yet we are so happy to welcome Mono it as a requirement for our default apps.

Because the people who freak out about Mono are hypocrites.As I have just shown, being so eager to include Mono and Mono-dependent apps on the default, but not do so with mp3, DVD , fonts and etc. That's the true hypocrisy.

[directhex]

Hey i just found your post. It would be very easy to ask you or Miguel if you did anything innovative besides pushing MS IP on Linux. But I won't as you can see, such things are irrelevant. The fact I have not yet made any major contribution to free software is not relevant at all. It does not make my argument any less true, it does not prove that article wrong. In other words, my argument stands, while yours has become just a personal attack.

Miguel started GNOME and other projects like Gnumeric. Does that count as something other than "pushing MS IP on Linux"? If you want a "miguel-free" system, run Kubuntu.

It is funny, cause ubuntu does freak out about even including those things on repos, has to use a restricted repository. Yet we are so happy to welcome Mono it as a requirement for our default apps.

Mono is Free Software, implementing an international standard, and has never been the subject of patent-related threats. Why is it more dangerous than something like, say, Wine (which is not in Restricted/Multiverse)?

As I have just shown, being so eager to include Mono and Mono-dependent apps on the default, but not do so with mp3, DVD , fonts and etc. That's the true hypocrisy.

If you can't understand the difference between a free software implementation of a standard, an actively protected patented codec, an actively protected DMCA-violating cracker, and closed-source files whose license expressly only permits their distribution in winzip-self-extractor form... then there's really very little anyone can do for you

[saulgoode]

If you can't understand the difference between a free software implementation of a standard, an actively protected patented codec, an actively protected DMCA-violating cracker, and closed-source files whose license expressly only permits their distribution in winzip-self-extractor form... then there's really very little anyone can do for you
If you would consider Mono to be a "free software implementation of a standard", why would you not consider libmpeg3 and FFMPEG to also be Free Software implementations of standards?

Since 'libdvdcss' has never been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for DMCA violations, wherein lies your distinction between it and Mono?

[directhex]

If you would consider Mono to be a "free software implementation of a standard", why would you not consider libmpeg3 and FFMPEG to also be Free Software implementations of standards?

Presumably you mean libmad or liblame there, and yes, those implement a standard (ffmpeg implements many things, some of which are standards and some of which are not).

So yes, those are indeed Free Software implementations of standards in part or in whole.

However, the MP3 standard requires implementation of a patented algorithm, which has a license fee attached - and people can and have been chased down for violation of those patents. e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/07/patent_crackdown_at_cebit/

Since 'libdvdcss' has never been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for DMCA violations, wherein lies your distinction between it and Mono?

By "never" you mean "in a high profile case", right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon#The_DeCSS_prosecution

[saulgoode]

Presumably you mean libmad or liblame there, and yes, those implement a standard (ffmpeg implements many things, some of which are standards and some of which are not).

So yes, those are indeed Free Software implementations of standards in part or in whole.

However, the MP3 standard requires implementation of a patented algorithm, which has a license fee attached - and people can and have been chased down for violation of those patents. e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/07/patent_crackdown_at_cebit/

According to the Mono Project, Microsoft holds patents on the core of the .NET Framework. There is allegedly some promise of royalty free licensing being made available; but even if such is true, there is more to software being "Free" than just cost.

By "never" you mean "in a high profile case", right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon#The_DeCSS_prosecution
By "never" I meant "never". DeCSS is not libdvdcss and while I didn't mean to include DeCSS litigation in my assertion, I would point out that Mr Johansen was acquitted of all charges.

[directhex]

According to the Mono Project, Microsoft holds patents on the core of the .NET Framework. There is allegedly some promise of royalty free licensing being made available; but even if such is true, there is more to software being "Free" than just cost.

Software being "Free" has nothing to do with cost. It's to do with Freedom, as best defined in the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

The issue here is about software being "safe". That's gut feeling more than anything else. Some distributions come with MP3 support built in (because they don't feel that they're unsafe in doing so), others simply have no MP3 support at all (because they feel at high risk).

Where companies have actively threatened people (either other proprietary companies or Free Software developers), then regardless of the validity of their complaints, the supposedly infringing technology is generally either rewritten or dropped. Freetype was modified to avoid threats from Apple, for example.

Whether patent holders attack others is a measure of their business model. "Does it benefit me to do foo?" - for patent licensing companies (as surround MPEG patents) that's pretty obvious. For the case you're talking about... what is the compelling business argument for Microsoft to attack alternative ECMA-335 implementations, regardless of the legal validity of doing so? Would they win any prior-art arguments? Would they win any reciprocal attacks on Free Software companies' patents THEY violate? Would they win any goodwill or market share? Where's the profit in it?

By "never" I meant "never". DeCSS is not libdvdcss and while I didn't mean to include DeCSS litigation in my assertion, I would point out that Mr Johansen was acquitted of all charges.

Charges... of computer hacking.

That doesn't help much with other complaints which can be pointed at people, such as DMCA violation, patent violation, or regional equivalents.

[saulgoode]

The issue here is about software being "safe". That's gut feeling more than anything else.
I agree with you on this; however a gut feeling of safety does seem a bit of a departure from the earlier suggestion that there exist significant tangible differences between an Open Source implementation of a patent-covered ISO/ECMA standard and Open Source implementations of patent-covered ISO/IETF standards.

Also, when considering the degree of safety of a "patent-covered" project, one should include the degree of potential "risk" that is being accepted. A tightrope walker may have just as much chance of falling from a highwire 10 feet above the ground as one 100 feet; however, there is a significant difference in the potential for harm. Likewise, there is a significant difference in the potential for harm between a project which provides audio/video support in a particular format and a project which provides a runtime environment for dozens of manifold programs.

[directhex]

I agree with you on this; however a gut feeling of safety does seem a bit of a departure from the earlier suggestion that there exist significant tangible differences between an Open Source implementation of a patent-covered ISO/ECMA standard and Open Source implementations of patent-covered ISO/IETF standards.

But that's the problem with software. What is infringing? What's the quote - "If an app is more than 10 lines long, it probably violates a software patent"? Does Mono violate any specific patents? Does GNOME? Does KDE? Does the kernel? Are those patents held by entities which actively sue for it?

MP3 is, by definition, an implementation of a patented algorithm, held by a number of hostile entities such as Fraunhofer IIS and Thompson. Whether Mono is or is not infringing on any patents held by hostile entities is a question much closer to the Freetype situation - patents *when brought to the attention of those responsible* can be worked around yet the same result achieved. Probably, anyway. With media codecs, what tends to be patented is the algorithm (laughable as that concept is) - with most other software, it's the means to a given end which is patented (and a different means can usually reach the same end). That's the significant difference you're looking for.

Also, when considering the degree of safety of a "patent-covered" project, one should include the degree of potential "risk" that is being accepted. A tightrope walker may have just as much chance of falling from a highwire 10 feet above the ground as one 100 feet; however, there is a significant difference in the potential for harm. Likewise, there is a significant difference in the potential for harm between a project which provides audio/video support in a particular format and a project which provides a runtime environment for dozens of manifold programs.

So what specifically are you pointing towards as the risk point? If (as is claimed by some mentally subnormal blowhards), the Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents, then does identification of them mean the kernel gets deleted entirely? Of course not - and I'd call the claimant a moron if they suggested it. Those specific elements would be reworked or even purged, but the overall project would remain. Similarly, if some component of Mono were attacked for patent violation, then that section would be reworked or dropped - but the apps would survive the attack. Escape route after escape route has been planned in from upstream to downstream to app developers - a cascading list of worst-case scenarios still leaves apps intact at the end, in varying degrees of modification.

Shouldn't app developers be the ones to decide on whether to accept that risk? Shouldn't distribution managers be the ones to decide on whether to accept the risk of accepting those packages?

[Rokurosv]

The only Mono application I've found useful is Gnome-Do, Docky is such an awesome dock, but needs more work.

[directhex]

The only Mono application I've found useful is Gnome-Do, Docky is such an awesome dock, but needs more work.

I'm sure Dave & his team would welcome any contributions

[Rokurosv]

I'm sure Dave & his team would welcome any contributions

I've programmed with .NET before, haven't done it in a while though, mostly C# and VB. What languages are available for Mono?

[alternatealias]

Mono supports C#, VB, Nemerle, Boo, IronPython, IronRuby, etc.

[karellen]

threads like this make me bang my head against the wall and dump the Linux community forever. but I'm well aware that some zealots != the whole community consisting of people using and enjoying Linux (and, maybe, Windows)

[directhex]

I've programmed with .NET before, haven't done it in a while though, mostly C# and VB. What languages are available for Mono?

Gnome-Do is written in C#, but remember that the Common Language Infrastructure allows multiple languages to interoperate seamlessly. In Jaunty, the following CLI languages exist: C#, VB.NET, Boo, Nemerle, Java, Python, ILasm

[smartboyathome]

If you want a GPL-compliant (therefore completely free in the GNU sense), then get GoBuntu. Since Mono doesn't violate the GPL, it gets included, and since GoBuntu is a GNU distro, they wouldn't tolerate it if Mono did do something illegal.

[BuffaloX]

I honestly don't know if mono is good or bad.
And this thread doesn't help too much.
At first it sounds like a really bad idea, why put ourselves unnecessarily in the line of fire?
But then I read about how Mono enabled the biggest accounting firm in Denmark to port their .Net based services to Linux, which enable some public offices to use Linux too, which sounds great.

Miguel de Icaza says he is very aware of US patent law, and have said that although he doesn't like US patent law he needs to work within the rules, and that he sleeps very well at night.

Miguel has done a lot of good for Linux, I think he still does.

[HowardJZ]

I see that the ubuntu-desktop package depends on mono now. I'm investing heavily in Ubuntu and I think this is a bad decision, moreover when there are other alternatives.
...


I agree. Get rid of mono, really anything produced at Novell.

For more information, see these links:

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/11/abolish-mono-and-moonlight/

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/11/bruce-perens-on-novell-ms/

[smartboyathome]

I agree. Get rid of mono, really anything produced at Novell.

For more information, see these links:

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/11/abolish-mono-and-moonlight/

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/11/bruce-perens-on-novell-ms/

1) boycottnovell has been known to create facts, and thus isn't a reputable source.
2) If you want to get rid of anything related to Novell, get off Linux, as even the kernel and many drivers, programs, etc have code from Novell.
3) Tell me what Novell did that was wrong. If you say they made a deal with Microsoft, think of this: Red Hat did too. Plus, as I said in another thread, Novell wouldn't have made the deal if it meant it would destroy/harm Linux, as they are very heavily invested in it.

[directhex]

1) boycottnovell has been known to create facts, and thus isn't a reputable source.

They make things up on a daily basis. They're brilliant comedy. And as far as objectivity goes, the last piece of thread necrophilia on this thread was courtesy a BN contributor.

One interesting note: BN's founder quit in disgust at the worse-than-4chan level of discourse the site's main editor and contributing trolls provided.

The thing to remember, though, is it's not their fault. Whilst the casual observer might thing BN wants Free Software to fail with the constant attacks against Free projects and users and distros etc because they're simply haters of Free Software... Google for "Hanlon's Razor" for the best explanation for their behaviour

When Microsoft starts suing then I'm all for removing it

Agreed.

As for including it as default... I will stand by my viewpoint of the best tools should be included. If someone can create a better gtk-based photo manager than f-spot (and I am sure it can be done), then I would support its inclusion. Same with tomboy. And my choice of Banshee as a music library/player has nothing to do with it being mono... I just like the application. If it was python or C I would still like it just as much... I frankly don't care about the language if the application works. So if you really want mono gone... go write applications in a language you prefer that can rival and/or surpass the current mono ones. But until you can provide suitable alternatives, mono will stay.

Absolutely agreed. I want Ubuntu to be great, that's my concern. Dropping Beagle in favour of Tracker was a good call - dropping, say, Tomboy for Zim would be a moron move.

[jordilin]

There are great applications in Mono like Tomboy and f-spot. Gnome (not Ubuntu) www.gnome.org includes Tomboy by default if you were to build your own distro. Mono is opensource and .Net is an ECMA standard by which anybody can implement its own .net version if you want to. Mono is not the only one implementing the CLI. Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/
Linux is about free of choice amongst other things. Don't like Mono? Remove it. Removing Mono could imply removing Gnome? Use Kde, Xfce, fluxbox, etc...

[directhex]

There are great applications in Mono like Tomboy and f-spot. Gnome (not Ubuntu) www.gnome.org includes Tomboy by default if you were to build your own distro. Mono is opensource and .Net is an ECMA standard by which anybody can implement its own .net version if you want to. Mono is not the only one implementing the CLI. Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/
Linux is about free of choice amongst other things. Don't like Mono? Remove it. Removing Mono could imply removing Gnome? Use Kde, Xfce, fluxbox, etc...

Removing Mono has never removed GNOME on Ubuntu. Mono apps are Recommends: of ubuntu-desktop - you can remove Recommends without causing dependency issues

[jordilin]

Removing Mono has never removed GNOME on Ubuntu. Mono apps are Recommends: of ubuntu-desktop - you can remove Recommends without causing dependency issues

which is great for those who love Gnome and dont like mono.

[directhex]

which is great for those who love Gnome and dont like mono.

True

And for those with an obvious agenda to push, little details like reality can't be allowed to get in the way of a good lie

[Yfrwlf]

Microsoft has attacked Linux with software patents. They can go to hell. This is Linux, and this is their direct competition. Of course they want Linux developers making software they can run on their crufty soon-to-be-more-irrelevant OS under terms they control. Amazing how fast everyone forgets things.

But if users here want to run Microsoft Linux, it's their choice, I just think it's a bad one and not helpful for Linux in the long run. The "it's OK, we'll replace it later if they start being jerks about it" concept is horribly flawed. The more you start investing time and effort in Microsoft Linux apps, the less everyone will want to abandon them, and the more leverage Microsoft will have in asking for royalties when they come to collect for patent infringement. Dump it now while it's still easy.

Don't ignore history, let it teach you a lesson. There are many articles about Microsoft attacking Linux via patent claims. Read up on it sometime.

[directhex]

Microsoft has attacked Linux with software patents. They can go to hell. This is Linux, and this is their direct competition. Of course they want Linux developers making software they can run on their crufty soon-to-be-more-irrelevant OS under terms they control. Amazing how fast everyone forgets things.

But if users here want to run Microsoft Linux, it's their choice, I just think it's a bad one and not helpful for Linux in the long run. The "it's OK, we'll replace it later if they start being jerks about it" concept is horribly flawed. The more you start investing time and effort in Microsoft Linux apps, the less everyone will want to abandon them, and the more leverage Microsoft will have in asking for royalties when they come to collect for patent infringement. Dump it now while it's still easy.

Don't ignore history, let it teach you a lesson. There are many articles about Microsoft attacking Linux via patent claims. Read up on it sometime.

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/70/

And "many articles" doesn't count if they're on anti-Free-Software blogs like Boycott Novell

[saulgoode]

And "many articles" doesn't count if they're on anti-Free-Software blogs like Boycott Novell
A Google search of "microsoft attacking Linux via patent claims" (Yfrwlf's words) produces 519,000 results. While the first result is actually from Boycott Novell, it is an article about MS attacking Google (perhaps Google weights themselves higher when searching). BN.com does not appear again in at least the next 12 pages of results (I gave up after page 13).

There were indeed many articles from a wide variety of sources. Certainly not all of them can be dismissed by tossing out trite accusations of being "anti-Free-Software".

Here is a sampling of some of those sites:
arstechnica.com
businessinsider.com
computerworlduk.com
engadget.com
eweek.com
forbes.com
gartner.com
huffingtonpost.com
informationweek.com
internetnews.com
itworld.com
linux.com
linuxdevices.com
linux-foundation.org
linuxjournal.com
linuxplanet.com
linux-watch.com
linuxworld.com
seattlepi.com
techflash.com
techrepublic.com
zdnet.com

[danielrmt]

We should also get rid of FAT/NTFS file systems, Samba, MSN protocol in Pidgin, Wine, MS Office formats in Open Office...

[Bios Element]

We should also get rid of FAT/NTFS file systems, Samba, MSN protocol in Pidgin, Wine, MS Office formats in Open Office...

Don't forget we should remove the menu's, desktop, icons, "window" interface while we're at it just chop everything else out. >.>

[directhex]

Don't forget we should remove the menu's, desktop, icons, "window" interface while we're at it just chop everything else out. >.>

Partial list at the bottom of http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/

[cb951303]

you know I read a lot of mono hate threads but I still don't know on what base microsoft can sue linux. I mean C# is an ecma standard and .NET library is reimplemented from scratch for mono. What would be the official accusation? If it's patents, which ones exactly?

EDIT: nevermind, I found it on previous page.
I don't know why they let people to have patents for these kind of information.

[pimz]

Now Mono is intergrated in Jaunty Gnome (GTK) will a fork emerge? :popcorn:

[Dragonbite]

Oh, this argument again...

Use gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org/) since it's all about open source.. wait, it includes Mono.

Use KDE, so long as you don't use kbeagle (or whatever it is, the KDE front-end for Beagle).

Why not pick a distribution that lets you pick what you want during installation, like Fedora?

[directhex]

Now Mono is intergrated in Jaunty Gnome (GTK) will a fork emerge? :popcorn:

Mono's level of integration in Ubuntu remains unchanged since 6.10.

[Yfrwlf]

We should also get rid of FAT/NTFS file systems, Samba, MSN protocol in Pidgin, Wine, MS Office formats in Open Office...

The difference is all those can be easily chopped, as they are easily disposable, but building entire programs on their so-called "standards" which are lumped in together with non-standard proprietary code in most books (because they care about Windows, not just the "standard" parts) means you are 100% playing in their sandbox. It's investing time and money into learning a virus that can spread, because a programming language means you are directly in violation every step of the way.

M$ is anti-Linux and have tried collecting royalties from Linux before, that's the entire point of the Novell deal which um is still going on AFAIK, so like anyone is going to trust them now. Sorry but for some reason Linux users are weary of M$ traps now, no clue why. ^^

.NET is and always will be slanted towards M$ and their Windows platform, that's what it was designed for. Mono is the sample, but if you want the whole .NET cinnabun, you have to pay for Windows. That's the way it will always be. "Come to Windows if you want the REAL fully-compatible version." It will never function exactly as the Windows version does and the Windows version will have better features because it will use all the extensions and bells and whistles which are NOT part of the "standards".

But any way, I don't care what users here do, but I choose neutral vendors that care about all platforms equally or just about Linux, and actually directly support Linux instead of M$ using Novell as their delivery boy, and who, you know, don't threaten one of their very indirectly-supported platforms by threatening them with patent lawsuits. Those are the companies I support, who aren't 90% illegal in their monopolistic business practices. M$ is a very immoral company, if you actually know their history. There are many corporations who are, but this is about operating systems, they're the biggest and the worst and I hope they die out because of their crimes though it's already too late in a sense. The most anyone can hope for is that their empire doesn't continue for too much longer and I hope the EU continues to fight them for fair consumer rights because we all know the U.S. certainly doesn't care if consumers have no choice when they go to buy a computer.

[karellen]

The difference is all those can be easily chopped, as they are easily disposable, but building entire programs on their so-called "standards" which are lumped in together with non-standard proprietary code in most books (because they care about Windows, not just the "standard" parts) means you are 100% playing in their sandbox. It's investing time and money into learning a virus that can spread, because a programming language means you are directly in violation every step of the way.

M$ is anti-Linux and have tried collecting royalties from Linux before, that's the entire point of the Novell deal which um is still going on AFAIK, so like anyone is going to trust them now. Sorry but for some reason Linux users are weary of M$ traps now, no clue why. ^^

.NET is and always will be slanted towards M$ and their Windows platform, that's what it was designed for. Mono is the sample, but if you want the whole .NET cinnabun, you have to pay for Windows. That's the way it will always be. "Come to Windows if you want the REAL fully-compatible version." It will never function exactly as the Windows version does and the Windows version will have better features because it will use all the extensions and bells and whistles which are NOT part of the "standards".

But any way, I don't care what users here do, but I choose neutral vendors that care about all platforms equally or just about Linux, and actually directly support Linux instead of M$ using Novell as their delivery boy, and who, you know, don't threaten one of their very indirectly-supported platforms by threatening them with patent lawsuits. Those are the companies I support, who aren't 90% illegal in their monopolistic business practices. M$ is a very immoral company, if you actually know their history. There are many corporations who are, but this is about operating systems, they're the biggest and the worst and I hope they die out because of their crimes though it's already too late in a sense. The most anyone can hope for is that their empire doesn't continue for too much longer and I hope the EU continues to fight them for fair consumer rights because we all know the U.S. certainly doesn't care if consumers have no choice when they go to buy a computer.

I'm not sure you have a clue about what you're talking about about. if you read Mono's license, you'll see it's GPL. what more do you want? besides hate and pleas for tinfoil hats...

[smartboyathome]

The difference is all those can be easily chopped, as they are easily disposable, but building entire programs on their so-called "standards" which are lumped in together with non-standard proprietary code in most books (because they care about Windows, not just the "standard" parts) means you are 100% playing in their sandbox. It's investing time and money into learning a virus that can spread, because a programming language means you are directly in violation every step of the way.

M$ is anti-Linux and have tried collecting royalties from Linux before, that's the entire point of the Novell deal which um is still going on AFAIK, so like anyone is going to trust them now. Sorry but for some reason Linux users are weary of M$ traps now, no clue why. ^^

.NET is and always will be slanted towards M$ and their Windows platform, that's what it was designed for. Mono is the sample, but if you want the whole .NET cinnabun, you have to pay for Windows. That's the way it will always be. "Come to Windows if you want the REAL fully-compatible version." It will never function exactly as the Windows version does and the Windows version will have better features because it will use all the extensions and bells and whistles which are NOT part of the "standards".

But any way, I don't care what users here do, but I choose neutral vendors that care about all platforms equally or just about Linux, and actually directly support Linux instead of M$ using Novell as their delivery boy, and who, you know, don't threaten one of their very indirectly-supported platforms by threatening them with patent lawsuits. Those are the companies I support, who aren't 90% illegal in their monopolistic business practices. M$ is a very immoral company, if you actually know their history. There are many corporations who are, but this is about operating systems, they're the biggest and the worst and I hope they die out because of their crimes though it's already too late in a sense. The most anyone can hope for is that their empire doesn't continue for too much longer and I hope the EU continues to fight them for fair consumer rights because we all know the U.S. certainly doesn't care if consumers have no choice when they go to buy a computer.

Now you're just spreading FUD. Mono IS based on standards, and while it does offer windows proprietary stuff, it is neither in the default Ubuntu install, nor compiled by default. You have to specifically tell Mono to compile that stuff, and thus you aren't affected by patents unless you do.

[directhex]

.NET is and always will be slanted towards M$ and their Windows platform, that's what it was designed for. Mono is the sample, but if you want the whole .NET cinnabun, you have to pay for Windows. That's the way it will always be. "Come to Windows if you want the REAL fully-compatible version." It will never function exactly as the Windows version does and the Windows version will have better features because it will use all the extensions and bells and whistles which are NOT part of the "standards".

This is an attack - not an observation or argument - used ONLY by people who would never use *ANY* ".NET cinnabun", if indeed they program at all.

Fortunately, it was already rebuffed (http://mono-project.com/Mailpost:longreply) as far back as 2002:

* What if we never can keep up?

There is the issue that we might not be able to keep up (right
now, we dont, as .NET Framework 1.0 is already out there, and we
are, well still underway). Also, theoretically there is the risk
of a given API being unimplementable on Unix.

Even if that is the case, we still win, because we would get
this nice programming environment, that althought might not end up
being 100% .NET Framework compatible, it would still be an
improvement and would still help us move forward. So we can reuse
all the research and development done by Microsoft on these ideas,
and use as much as we can.

Mono was already being used to write decent Linux apps, far faster & easier than any other comparable framework, as far back as 2002, by leveraging Free Software enhancements to the core parts of .NET, such as GTK#. The far-flung parts of the spec? they don't matter for apps like Gnome-Do or Tomboy, they only matter for Windows switchers. And at that point, the question is "do we want it to be easier for these guys to migrate from Windows to Linux?" Pick your answer wisely.

[Dragonbite]

Another side benefit that people don't notice all that much is that Mono is finding its way into gaming engines and virtual worlds like Second Life. If Mono makes moves into gaming enough then maybe that could help cross-platform games as Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, Ajax and everybody else has not.

[gnomeuser]

This is an attack - not an observation or argument - used ONLY by people who would never use *ANY* ".NET cinnabun", if indeed they program at all.

Fortunately, it was already rebuffed (http://mono-project.com/Mailpost:longreply) as far back as 2002:

Mono was already being used to write decent Linux apps, far faster & easier than any other comparable framework, as far back as 2002, by leveraging Free Software enhancements to the core parts of .NET, such as GTK#. The far-flung parts of the spec? they don't matter for apps like Gnome-Do or Tomboy, they only matter for Windows switchers. And at that point, the question is "do we want it to be easier for these guys to migrate from Windows to Linux?" Pick your answer wisely.

Not to mention that there are several areas where Mono is ahead of the Microsoft reference implementation like the C# shell which Microsoft won't be shipping till 2012. There are also areas where Mono expands on the .NET standard in useful ways such as Mono.SIMD. Work that can be taken to the ECMA standardization group once it's polished and proven some more.

People making the claim that Mono will always be playing catchup to Microsoft' reference implementation are simply not living in reality. It is clear that Mono is capable of not only keeping up with MS.NET in every relevant area but also outpace it and innovate within the standard as well.

[Mateo]

does mono have the asp ajax stuff?

[Yfrwlf]

Now you're just spreading FUD. Mono IS based on standards, and while it does offer windows proprietary stuff, it is neither in the default Ubuntu install, nor compiled by default. You have to specifically tell Mono to compile that stuff, and thus you aren't affected by patents unless you do.

Um ya it is, I have to remove it on every fresh Ubuntu install. Mono is included on the Live CD and gets installed.

As for everyone else using Microsoft-backed and patented programming languages, have fun with that. I'm supporting other efforts though. ^^

[danielrmt]

Um ya it is, I have to remove it on every fresh Ubuntu install. Mono is included on the Live CD and gets installed.
Mono is installed, but not Windows Forms.



@Mateo:
Yes, Mono versions after 1.9 do support ASP.NET AJAX. (http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_ASP.NET)

[Dragonbite]

Um ya it is, I have to remove it on every fresh Ubuntu install. Mono is included on the Live CD and gets installed.

As for everyone else using Microsoft-backed and patented programming languages, have fun with that. I'm supporting other efforts though. ^^

You're free to use whatever you want, really. I poke around Mono because at work I'm using .NET (unfortunately it's VB.NET base ASP.NET which is the least supported language in Monodevelop). I'm not going crazy with it since I don't get that much time to do things at home.

If Mono is that important for avoiding then look to a KDE based app (Kerry is the Beagle-engine with KDE front end) or Fedora, openSUSE or one of the distributions that allows you to pick-and-choose the applications instead of using a LiveCD. Even an Ubuntu Alternative disk may allow you to bypass that selection.

As for myself, I'm really disliking F-spot, don't use Tomboy and Banshee is the only one I may use and that I'm not married to because Rythmbox works fine (providing I can get the iPod connected).

[xoluxo]

The difference is all those can be easily chopped, as they are easily disposable, but building entire programs on their so-called "standards" which are lumped in together with non-standard proprietary code in most books (because they care about Windows, not just the "standard" parts) means you are 100% playing in their sandbox. It's investing time and money into learning a virus that can spread, because a programming language means you are directly in violation every step of the way.


Microsoft has been in business for a long time.

If you are going to dismiss those on the grounds that they are "easily chopped" (easier said than done) let us look at some other examples, programming interfaces.

Microsoft invented COM in the 90's and they got patents on it. COM is the "old" .NET, and it was a useful invention for creating component software.

Both Firefox's core and OpenOffice contain implementations of the patented bits. And they live at the very core of these two applications, everything in these apps is built on top of COM. In Firefox is it called XPCOM, and in OpenOffice it is called UNO.

Firefox' XPCOM is not limited to firefox, it has been used in VirtualBox, in Thunderbird, in Songbird and anything else that needed a COM implementation. UNO has not been as successful as a platform, but the entire office suite infringes.

You can actually find many more examples using Google Code search:

http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=iunknown+queryinterface

And you can find all the patents related to the invention here:

http://www.google.com/patents?q=queryinterface+iunknown


.NET is and always will be slanted towards M$ and their Windows platform, that's what it was designed for. Mono is the sample, but if you want the whole .NET cinnabun, you have to pay for Windows. That's the way it will always be. "Come to Windows if you want the REAL fully-compatible version." It will never function exactly as the Windows version does and the Windows version will have better features because it will use all the extensions and bells and whistles which are NOT part of the "standards".


But Linux users do not need the whole "cinnabun". In fact, all of the Gnome apps built with Mono use the ECMA Core plus their own native APIs: Gtk#, Mono.Posix and others.

None of that WPF, Windows.Forms or ASP.NET.

[alternatealias]

Microsoft has been in business for a long time.

If you are going to dismiss those on the grounds that they are "easily chopped" (easier said than done) let us look at some other examples, programming interfaces.

Microsoft invented COM in the 90's and they got patents on it. COM is the "old" .NET, and it was a useful invention for creating component software.

Both Firefox's core and OpenOffice contain implementations of the patented bits. And they live at the very core of these two applications, everything in these apps is built on top of COM. In Firefox is it called XPCOM, and in OpenOffice it is called UNO.

Firefox' XPCOM is not limited to firefox, it has been used in VirtualBox, in Thunderbird, in Songbird and anything else that needed a COM implementation. UNO has not been as successful as a platform, but the entire office suite infringes.

This is an excellent point that most people forget (including me!).

[Kilon]

I am surely a windows hater but when it comes to .NET framework I am a huge fan. I am 100% behind the mono effort even though I have chosen python as my programming language.

I would love however to see DELPHI .NET supported by mono. Already the open source community has done an amazing job with FreePascal and Lazarus.

I cannot see Microsoft as big evil company, as any big company it does what every big company is doing .

Personally I have turned completely to pen source and this is punishment enough for these companies. I exclude Apple because they genuinely care for their customers.

[TheForkOfJustice]

I have no idea how often this has been talked to death but does anyone else think they should leave Mono out of the next release?

Only a few disposable and easily-replaced programs use Mono and I hear it's a bit buggy to boot. I hate removing all those -cil packages.

Anyone feel the same way?

[doas777]

Why? linux is about choice. if you don't want to use them, then don't.
mono-develop is no visual studio yet, but with the last release they got what i really wanted: step-thru.

just my 2 bits

[SKLP]

I have no idea how often this has been talked to death but does anyone else think they should leave Mono out of the next release?Not this topic again.... Mono is here to stay, and It's looking like Banshee will replace Rhythmbox in the default install soon (hopefully) :)

Only a few disposable and easily-replaced programs use Mono and I hear it's a bit buggy to boot. Quite a few apps use Mono. What do you mean by "buggy to boot".
I hate removing all those -cil packages. If you hate to remove them, then don't! :))
Anyone feel the same way?Not me.

[ghindo]

Oh, this thread will end well.

[Mehall]

The main reason so many people want rid of Mono isn't for any reason other than it's an MS-based (wel... based on an MS design) product, not for any programming reason.
Mono is OSI certified (unlike Moonlight) so I don't have that issue.

From the other (good reasoning) end of the spectrum, I don't really have any problem with it.

Also: one of the most popular apps, Gnome-Do, needs Mono.

[SKLP]

Oh, this thread will end well.Indeed

[SKLP]

The main reason so many people want rid of Mono isn't for any reason other than it's an MS-based (wel... based on an MS design) product, not for any programming reason. Probably true, sadly.
Mono is OSI certified (unlike Moonlight) so I don't have that issue.If by OSI-certified you mean it's released under OSI-approved license(s), then both are OSI-approved. Not that I like moonlight that much. All the javascript and flash is bad enough at it is.

[sertse]

This has been argued ad-infinitum that it's safe to assume Ubuntu knows all the various arguments already, and actively decided to stay with mono.

What surprises me are users who think otherwise about Ubuntu.

[Starks]

Apparently Moonlight is now officially called Microsoft Moonlight.

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/04/25/moonlight-renamed-microsoft-moonlight/

[Mehall]

Probably true, sadly.
If by OSI-certified you mean it's released under OSI-approved license(s), then both are OSI-approved. Not that I like moonlight that much. All the javascript and flash is bad enough at it is.

Moonlight itself is released yes, but for it to work it requires binary codecs from MSFT. As a whole, it is not OSI certified, but it get's the license since, theoretically, an OSI-certified codec *could* do the job were one to exist.

Also: the OSI-certification is under question since it's theoretically only distributable by Novell, though that has yet to be challenged properly (Ubuntu including it in the repo's and Novell/MSFT making no moves to a lawsuit says it isn't actually going to be called upon.)

[SKLP]

Moonlight itself is released yes, but for it to work it requires binary codecs from MSFT. As a whole, it is not OSI certified, but it get's the license since, theoretically, an OSI-certified codec *could* do the job were one to exist.
Moonlight is available with open source codecs in the jaunty repository (package: moonlight-plugin-mozilla), FYI.
Also: the OSI-certification is under question since it's theoretically only distributable by Novell, though that has yet to be challenged properly (Ubuntu including it in the repo's and Novell/MSFT making no moves to a lawsuit says it isn't actually going to be called upon.)All software is threatened by software patents.

[ronacc]

the close association of mono with microsoft taints it beyond any possible redemption .

[Mehall]

the close association of mono with microsoft taints it beyond any possible redemption .

I hope you built your computer out of devices whose hardware manufacturers support the open source drivers for their hardware.

This means no ATi pre-2006, no nVidia, no Intel (well.. half and half...)

and no countless other pieces of hardware (almost certainly including any WiFi card you have)

What's that? You bought <Insert OEM's name here, possibly Dell, Hp, etc.>?

Then your computer has a closer association with MSFT than Mono does.

I am not a fan of MSFTs business tactics, not by any means, but really, don't be that guy (and by that guy, I mean the stereotypical Linux user.)

[SKLP]

i hope you built your computer out of devices whose hardware manufacturers support the open source drivers for their hardware.

This means no ati pre-2006, no nvidia, no intel (well.. Half and half...)

and no countless other pieces of hardware (almost certainly including any wifi card you have)

what's that? You bought <insert oem's name here, possibly dell, hp, etc.>?

Then your computer has a closer association with msft than mono does.

I am not a fan of msfts business tactics, not by any means, but really, don't be that guy (and by that guy, i mean the stereotypical linux user.)+1

[ronacc]

I hope you built your computer out of devices whose hardware manufacturers support the open source drivers for their hardware.

This means no ATi pre-2006, no nVidia, no Intel (well.. half and half...)

and no countless other pieces of hardware (almost certainly including any WiFi card you have)

What's that? You bought <Insert OEM's name here, possibly Dell, Hp, etc.>?

Then your computer has a closer association with MSFT than Mono does.

I am not a fan of MSFTs business tactics, not by any means, but really, don't be that guy (and by that guy, I mean the stereotypical Linux user.)

as a mater of fact I do build my own boxes, for several reasons, one of which is to avoid the "windows tax" since I have been exclusively linux for a decade , and I do prefer hardware vendors that strongly support linux although I am not hardcore about only running opensource drivers . When I bought my eeepc 701 I got the xandros model ofcourse ( it now sports jaunty on the ssd and puppy on an sdhc card ). my extreme hatred of all things MS predates linux by a long time .

[lamalex]

Apparently Moonlight is now officially called Microsoft Moonlight.

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/04/25/moonlight-renamed-microsoft-moonlight/

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? You don't cite boycottnovell if you want to make a serious argument with respect to Mono, those guys wouldn't know good journalism if ... I can't even think of a hyperbole, they just wouldn't know good journalism period.


OP: I don't know who told you mono was buggy (boycottnovel maybe?), it's not. You probably don't even realize you're using mono apps half the time you're using them, I know I've met tons of people who are shocked to learn that f-spot, tomboy, banshee, and GNOME Do are mono apps. Removing Mono would be a major step back for Ubuntu, and ultimately this is a moot discussion as it's really been discussed to death. Let dead horses lie.

[ronacc]

perhaps their journalism isn't up to your standards but their sentiment is alright by me , I was a dedicated SuSe user until they made a deal with the devil .

[ninjapirate89]

Doesn't gnome-do run on mono? If so then I will never be without Mono again.

[-grubby]

Why do people have to hate on Mono so much? It's fine, and the applications written in it (At least the ones I've used) are very high quality.

BUT OHNOES IT'S REMOTELY RELATED TO MICRO$$$$$$$$$$$OFT WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!11111

[ghindo]

I don't really have much of an opinion on Mono one way or another, but one aspect of Mono I keep hearing about is "managed code." What does this mean, and how is this an advantage versus other programming languages?

[gtr32]

I don't really have much of an opinion on Mono one way or another, but one aspect of Mono I keep hearing about is "managed code." What does this mean, and how is this an advantage versus other programming languages?

Managed code means it runs in virtual machine, like Java. An application compiled with f.e. Visual Studio on MS platform will run with Mono on Linux (or OSX) if coded correctly, does not include native calls (unmanaged code) and Mono has the .NET libraries implemented.

[directhex]

Oh, this thread will end well.

This thread will end dipped in chocolate and pure liquid awesome

[directhex]

Apparently Moonlight is now officially called Microsoft Moonlight.

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/04/25/moonlight-renamed-microsoft-moonlight/

Nope, it's not. BoycottNovell is fiction, not fact.

[directhex]

Moonlight itself is released yes, but for it to work it requires binary codecs from MSFT. As a whole, it is not OSI certified, but it get's the license since, theoretically, an OSI-certified codec *could* do the job were one to exist.

Like ffmpeg, for example? The way the Moonlight packages in every distro use ffmpeg?

Funny thing is, codecs (like MP3, needed by Silverlight amongst others) ARE patented - you can either violate the patents with ffmpeg, or use a patent-licensed decoder in the Microsoft Media Pack. Which is the lesser evil?

[smbm]

I have no idea how often this has been talked to death but does anyone else think they should leave Mono out of the next release?

Only a few disposable and easily-replaced programs use Mono and I hear it's a bit buggy to boot. I hate removing all those -cil packages.

Anyone feel the same way?

Absolutely not.

[directhex]

Absolutely not.

The decision is made anyway:

(11:12:02 AM) jcastro: <blfgomes> QUESTION: Recently, the idea of replacing Rhythmbox for Banshee in Karmic has resparked the Mono debate in the Ubuntu community. As the SABDFL, what is your view on Mono? Is it safe to build a distribution that depends on it?
(11:12:28 AM) sabdfl: yes, i believe mono is a reasonable runtime to include in a distribution like ubuntu
(11:12:45 AM) sabdfl: i don't expect microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on mono adoption, they have said they will not do that
(11:12:51 AM) sabdfl: next?

[smbm]

The decision is made anyway:

(11:12:02 AM) jcastro: <blfgomes> QUESTION: Recently, the idea of replacing Rhythmbox for Banshee in Karmic has resparked the Mono debate in the Ubuntu community. As the SABDFL, what is your view on Mono? Is it safe to build a distribution that depends on it?
(11:12:28 AM) sabdfl: yes, i believe mono is a reasonable runtime to include in a distribution like ubuntu
(11:12:45 AM) sabdfl: i don't expect microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on mono adoption, they have said they will not do that
(11:12:51 AM) sabdfl: next?

Yeah, I'm just reading through that too. I'm glad Mark doesn't listen to all the FUD.

Did you get to the bit about the new look yet?

[saulgoode]

(11:12:45 AM) sabdfl: i don't expect microsoft to launch any IP assaults based on mono adoption, they have said they will not do that

Where did Microsoft say that?

[directhex]

Where did Microsoft say that?

Ask Mark, not me. Presumably he's referring to the EMCA terms they agreed to for standardization.

[saulgoode]

Ask Mark, not me. Presumably he's referring to the EMCA terms they agreed to for standardization.

It must be something else, the ECMA terms (PDF) (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf) to which Microsoft agreed only says that they will be offering RAND licensing upon request.

[directhex]

It must be something else, the ECMA terms (PDF) (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-334%20&%20335/2001ga-123%20&%202002ga-003.pdf) to which Microsoft agreed only says that they will be offering RAND licensing upon request.

Then ask him, not me. I had nothing to do with the Q&A session above, nor to Ubuntu's decision to include Mono, including by default.

[Kilon]

.NET is amazing.

It is by far the best product of Microsoft.

It will be a huge mistake for UBUNTU to dismiss MONO.

No there is no question that MONO is here to stay for a very very long time.

I only wish for a Delphi .NET support in MONO.This would be the icing on the cake.

I am in love with python at the moment but Delphi .NET is my second best option.


GO MONO GO!!!!!

[TheForkOfJustice]

To clarify my OP comment: I have no problem with Mono, programs that use it, or even Microsoft (yet). Even, the thread I saw that mentioned that Mono programs were buggy seems to be gone too, so ignore that part in my OP post.

My main reason for not wanting it on Ubuntu is that installing many, many packages to run two (or a few) non-essential programs is inefficient and they should be replaced with programs written in Python or some other, more ubiquitous library.

I'm in charge of my own Ubuntu distro and need to remove unnecessary packages like Mono and the few apps that use it to make space for the packages I require. Adding Gnome-Do and Banshee to the mix wouldn't justify my keeping it in my release.

From this experience I don't see how that justifies it being in Ubuntu either. In the future, more valuable programs using Mono will exist and at that point it will be essential on the CD. But I don't see that as the case now.

If Mono had a killer app then things would be different. For example VLC, which I use in my distro for media. It moved from Python to QT so I had to now install QT just for VLC since it wasn't in Ubuntu by default. Still, VLC's usefulness at playing media with no codec-hunting made it too valuable to abandon so I kept it.

Also, as a side note, one day MS will make Mono act like crap on unix systems after it is adopted for use in core programs. The FOSS community would have to abandon Mono and replace those programs in other languages which would mean a technological gap of years as we play catch up and MS will enjoy every minute.

Just my opinion.

[mister_pink]

I don't think there's any need to remove mono, but its got to be a prime target for removing from the default install to make space on the CD. As far as I can tell its only tomboy notes that actually needs it, which I'm sure we can live without.

[danielrmt]

I don't think there's any need to remove mono, but its got to be a prime target for removing from the default install to make space on the CD. As far as I can tell its only tomboy notes that actually needs it, which I'm sure we can live without.

No, there's also F-Spot. But they are planning to replace Rhythmbox with Banshee, and free around 7MB in the CD (not sure about this number).

EDIT: See this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1128206), it would free 6MB.

[danielrmt]

Also, as a side note, one day MS will make Mono act like crap on unix systems after it is adopted for use in core programs. The FOSS community would have to abandon Mono and replace those programs in other languages which would mean a technological gap of years as we play catch up and MS will enjoy every minute.
There's no MS code in Mono. It's a open source project. How Microsoft will "make Mono act like crap on unix" without those Linux guys behind Mono (Miguel et al) noticing it?

[oack]

After reading all this thread I am on the fence as to whether MONO is a good thing for Ubuntu.

[gnomeuser]

To clarify my OP comment: I have no problem with Mono, programs that use it, or even Microsoft (yet). Even, the thread I saw that mentioned that Mono programs were buggy seems to be gone too, so ignore that part in my OP post.


Excellent, but then why encourage discriminatory treatment of Mono and Mono based applications. If these do provide us with desirable functionality and are supportable within the contraints of Ubuntu let them participate on a level playing field.


My main reason for not wanting it on Ubuntu is that installing many, many packages to run two (or a few) non-essential programs is inefficient and they should be replaced with programs written in Python or some other, more ubiquitous library.


What make you certain python is more efficient and by what metric do you measure this?


I'm in charge of my own Ubuntu distro and need to remove unnecessary packages like Mono and the few apps that use it to make space for the packages I require. Adding Gnome-Do and Banshee to the mix wouldn't justify my keeping it in my release.


Your distro, your rules.

However optimizations of the Mono stack in Ubuntu has allowed Banshee to replace Rhythmbox while saving 6 megs (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/74/) of space on the CD.

More can be saved on gnome-do e.g. once it is figured out how to split out the plugins more so to reduce the amount of dependencies.

Tomboy is also smaller than the (so far feature incomplete) reimplementation in C++ GNote.


From this experience I don't see how that justifies it being in Ubuntu either. In the future, more valuable programs using Mono will exist and at that point it will be essential on the CD. But I don't see that as the case now.


I thought just earlier you didn't at all disagree with Mono being allowable in Ubuntu (even if you seem to advocate it being a second class citizen).


If Mono had a killer app then things would be different. For example VLC, which I use in my distro for media. It moved from Python to QT so I had to now install QT just for VLC since it wasn't in Ubuntu by default. Still, VLC's usefulness at playing media with no codec-hunting made it too valuable to abandon so I kept it.


First: Python is a programming language and QT is a graphics (amongst other things) library they are not directly replacable as you seem to think.

Secondly: Mono has plenty of fine applications, Moonlight e.g. allows your users to enjoy Silverlight content in a 100% compatible fashion (SL1 currently, SL2 coming soon). Banshee has a rich featureset and an active community, it is a kickass media player. Tomboy, Tasque, Giver and not to forget MonoDevelop a fine IDE which serves more than just .NET. There are plenty of good Mono based applications to pick from and the collection is growing.


Also, as a side note, one day MS will make Mono act like crap on unix systems after it is adopted for use in core programs. The FOSS community would have to abandon Mono and replace those programs in other languages which would mean a technological gap of years as we play catch up and MS will enjoy every minute.

Just my opinion.

Mono is a community project implementing an ECMA standard under a set of OSI approved licenses. The applications built with it for Linux largely consist of programs using a mix of the Mono stack (gnome bindings, etc.) and .NET (As defined by ECMA). What way do you envision Microsoft being able to affect this? (and don't say patents (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/)).

Just the facts.

[doas777]

op, i understand your desire to slim down ubuntu a bit; one of my close friends is much the same way.

I personally learned my lesson about removing packages referred to in ubuntu-desktop, with a failed upgrade to hardy last year, so I just remove launchers to apps that i don't plan to use. the worst part is that the folks at launchpad, pointed it out to me some months before, and I just forgot. now, I really avoid both removing ubuntu-desktop member packages, and doing version upgrades.

you may wanna vote for this brainstorm Idea: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8358/

in the end, you may want to try one of the lightweight distros, like dsl or puppy or gentoo. or even bsd. ubuntu tries to be all things to all people, an approach that gains marketshare, but is designed such that it is almost always more than needed by any one user.

I love python, but i don't believe it has the performance that .net does. I am a .net developer, so I may be a bit biased, but at home I do usually use python for many small to medium tasks. if i want a gui though, or a step thru debugger, then nothing beats .net whether you using mono-develop or vs 2k8.

all that is important in my view is openness. if mono is open, and the code I write with it (personal code, not paid-for) , then it's all good.

have fun

[monsterstack]

Oh the ol' mono argument. I don't use it for moral reasons and remove it wherever it appears, and I suspect people who don't like mono will do likewise. People who do like mono won't do these things. And I'm okay with that. Still I have a few questions for some of the people here in this thread.

Mark Shutlleworth says if it becomes a problem in the future (http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/22/mark-shuttleworth-on-patents/) [boycottnovell.com], then it will be removed from Ubuntu. Pretty simple really. Deal with the problems if and when they arise. Hurray! Common-sense approach.

I have a few niggling problems with this ordeal. I know only the hackiest C, and nothing of either C++ or C#, so I can't really comment on the merits of each, and I won't.

The biggest problem I have with all this nonsense is Silverlight. Yes Moonlight is free software, but as I see it, it will always be crippled by having to play catch-up with the proprietary Silverlight. Even if the devs do manage to keep up-to-date, it still stifles the community by not allowing them to innovate. The proprietary nature of Silverlight stifles the moonlight guys by forcing them to march to Microsoft's beat. I'm no superl33t hacker, but I imagine it is very difficult to try and make a clone of a moving target, however endorsed the attempt to do so is. Personally, I'd much prefer it if people worked on stuff that was open from start to finish, codecs and all. But what do others think?

I've seen a few people here in this thread disregard the patent issues around mono. That's fair enough. After all it is possible to violate a patent with one line in a terminal window. We can't go around living in fear of patents. Microsoft may go after vulnerable saps such as tomtom, but to go after any major GNU/Linux distribution head-on would fail, and they know it. So far so good.

I'd like to know people's opinion on this (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx) [microsoft.com]. As far as I can tell Silverlight is completely toxic in every respect, and makes a mockery of the ideals of free software. And more than that, it goes completely against the openness that helped create the internet in the first place.

The reason I don't have a problem with the use of mono per se is choice. I have a choice not to use it. The only mono app I might consider using is fstop. When it comes to internet content, that freedom is effectively taken away from me by things such as Silverlight. Has anyone ever come across a site that "requires internet explorer" to work properly? Do you remember the rage you felt? This is what Silverlight feels like to me.

It isn't just Silverlight of course. Flash also irks me. I don't think that having vast swathes of content on the internet provided by closed-off apps that only have a few lacklustre free implementations is good for GNU/Linux, or good for anybody for that matter.

What are people's thoughts on this particular issue? I'm quite interested to know.

[directhex]

Mark Shutlleworth says if it becomes a problem in the future (http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/22/mark-shuttleworth-on-patents/) [boycottnovell.com], then it will be removed from Ubuntu. Pretty simple really. Deal with the problems if and when they arise. Hurray! Common-sense approach.

Agreed entirely.

The biggest problem I have with all this nonsense is Silverlight. Yes Moonlight is free software, but as I see it, it will always be crippled by having to play catch-up with the proprietary Silverlight. Even if the devs do manage to keep up-to-date, it still stifles the community by not allowing them to innovate. The proprietary nature of Silverlight stifles the moonlight guys by forcing them to march to Microsoft's beat. I'm no superl33t hacker, but I imagine it is very difficult to try and make a clone of a moving target, however endorsed the attempt to do so is. Personally, I'd much prefer it if people worked on stuff that was open from start to finish, codecs and all. But what do others think?

I've seen a few people here in this thread disregard the patent issues around mono. That's fair enough. After all it is possible to violate a patent with one line in a terminal window. We can't go around living in fear of patents. Microsoft may go after vulnerable saps such as tomtom, but to go after any major GNU/Linux distribution head-on would fail, and they know it. So far so good.

I'd like to know people's opinion on this (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx) [microsoft.com]. As far as I can tell Silverlight is completely toxic in every respect, and makes a mockery of the ideals of free software. And more than that, it goes completely against the openness that helped create the internet in the first place.

The reason I don't have a problem with the use of mono per se is choice. I have a choice not to use it. The only mono app I might consider using is fstop. When it comes to internet content, that freedom is effectively taken away from me by things such as Silverlight. Has anyone ever come across a site that "requires internet explorer" to work properly? Do you remember the rage you felt? This is what Silverlight feels like to me.

It isn't just Silverlight of course. Flash also irks me. I don't think that having vast swathes of content on the internet provided by closed-off apps that only have a few lacklustre free implementations is good for GNU/Linux, or good for anybody for that matter.

There's room for some degree of overlap here. For example, the solution touted by some quarters of the community is the <video> tag. If we ignore the functionality issues with blind use of <video>, one of the real issues with it is it will *never* mandate the codecs those same people want - Nokia's killed that dead.

Catch-up sucks. And unlike Mono, on the web, you're right about there only being one direction things can go - the "official" way (Microsoft's). It should be noted though that there are some cool places for Moonlight to push the envelope, even to Silverlight users: for example, the Moonlight developers have already implemented a feature from SL3 which lets you write codecs in C# and use any media format for video/audio: meaning right now, if you serve your content using SL, you can use Dirac/Vorbis files and have them work on legacy browsers like IE8 without requring any dodgy Media Player add-ons that never work. Which is sorta neat.

To an extent, look at it this way - if a web company decides it really likes Adobe or Microsoft content creation slash serving tools, then given the size of the Linux market, then they'll worry about Windows users first. If they WANT to focus on the Linux market, then the availability of things like Moonlight means they have the option of continuing to use the tools they're using, but simply need to do some QA to test it - or limit their use of APIs that aren't yet available. It's a rather more "gentle" way for them to support Linux people than ripping out an entire infrastructure, re-encoding all their media to a different format, or worse - MLB.com recently changed from SL to "Flash", but not real Flash - Flash with a huge unstable Windows-only add-on to play WMV-encoded files (as they already have their media in WMV). And sadly, there's much more chance of the SL-based site having worked in Linux, especially given Moonlight 1.9's release, than there is of the new WMV-eating add-on to Flash working there.

Oh, and have you SEEN the performance difference between Flash & Moonlight? It's like night & day. FLash kills my i7 920 on HD video, Moon barely flickers. And that's without the GPU acceleration stuff being worked on.

[monsterstack]

Catch-up sucks. And unlike Mono, on the web, you're right about there only being one direction things can go - the "official" way (Microsoft's). It should be noted though that there are some cool places for Moonlight to push the envelope, even to Silverlight users: for example, the Moonlight developers have already implemented a feature from SL3 which lets you write codecs in C# and use any media format for video/audio: meaning right now, if you serve your content using SL, you can use Dirac/Vorbis files and have them work on legacy browsers like IE8 without requring any dodgy Media Player add-ons that never work. Which is sorta neat.


I agree that it fills a gap for now, but I am not sure how sustainable it is in the long term. All future innovation rests in the hands of the few. Firefox became so popular precisely because it gave the users what they wanted and became the first browser to have proper pop-up stopping capabilities. Microsoft held off incorporating it into IE for a long time, and they paid the price. Nowadays Microsoft puts a lot of effort into making sure IE is a decent browser because they have to.

But the whole Silverlight thing flies in the face of that. On the one hand they're responding to the ubiquity of Flash and developing some pretty cool tech at the same time, but on the other they're developing a locked-in system. Which leads me to this scary made-up scenario: imagine a world where Linux users log on to the internet in a .Net Internet Explorer clone. Would we even have such features that Firefox and Internet Explorer have now? Would such innovation be possible? It isn't a great example as the two situations are not very analogous. Even so, we are now faced with the prospect of an internet where lots of content is served up via proprietary Silverlight- or Flash-based plugins. I deferred migrating to 64-bit Linux for a long time purely because Adobe's support was lacking. Even today, Flash in Linux is often buggy and cruddy.

To an extent, look at it this way - if a web company decides it really likes Adobe or Microsoft content creation slash serving tools, then given the size of the Linux market, then they'll worry about Windows users first. If they WANT to focus on the Linux market, then the availability of things like Moonlight means they have the option of continuing to use the tools they're using, but simply need to do some QA to test it - or limit their use of APIs that aren't yet available. It's a rather more "gentle" way for them to support Linux people than ripping out an entire infrastructure, re-encoding all their media to a different format, or worse - MLB.com recently changed from SL to "Flash", but not real Flash - Flash with a huge unstable Windows-only add-on to play WMV-encoded files (as they already have their media in WMV). And sadly, there's much more chance of the SL-based site having worked in Linux, especially given Moonlight 1.9's release, than there is of the new WMV-eating add-on to Flash working there.

Sure, but it's hardly ideal. It's the same attitude that probably causes a lot of Windows application developers to think, "Well it'll probably work in Wine." If developers start thinking this way, then nothing is ever really going to change. And worse, if Linux remains an afterthought in the minds of net application developers we'll be left with reduced-functionality (yet admirable) catch-up apps, which will fuel the fires of "Linux is not ready for prime-time" trolls for years to come, and with good reason.

[directhex]

I agree that it fills a gap for now, but I am not sure how sustainable it is in the long term. All future innovation rests in the hands of the few. Firefox became so popular precisely because it gave the users what they wanted and became the first browser to have proper pop-up stopping capabilities. Microsoft held off incorporating it into IE for a long time, and they paid the price. Nowadays Microsoft puts a lot of effort into making sure IE is a decent browser because they have to.

Competition drives innovation. Whodathinkit?

But the whole Silverlight thing flies in the face of that. On the one hand they're responding to the ubiquity of Flash and developing some pretty cool tech at the same time, but on the other they're developing a locked-in system. Which leads me to this scary made-up scenario: imagine a world where Linux users log on to the internet in a .Net Internet Explorer clone. Would we even have such features that Firefox and Internet Explorer have now? Would such innovation be possible? It isn't a great example as the two situations are not very analogous. Even so, we are now faced with the prospect of an internet where lots of content is served up via proprietary Silverlight- or Flash-based plugins. I deferred migrating to 64-bit Linux for a long time purely because Adobe's support was lacking. Even today, Flash in Linux is often buggy and cruddy.

Question is, which is the greater evil of the two? Regardless of neato samples on the Mozilla website, <video> isn't the holy grail it was meant to be, thanks to Nokia. To an extent, having both technologies available might be the best for everyone - both formats will need to compete, and Linux compatibility (e.g. ability to be used with the growing netbook market, especially with the advent of ARM-based netbooks) may be a core issue to compete over. You can use Moonlight today on ARM - not so Adobe Flash.

Sure, but it's hardly ideal. It's the same attitude that probably causes a lot of Windows application developers to think, "Well it'll probably work in Wine." If developers start thinking this way, then nothing is ever really going to change. And worse, if Linux remains an afterthought in the minds of net application developers we'll be left with reduced-functionality (yet admirable) catch-up apps, which will fuel the fires of "Linux is not ready for prime-time" trolls for years to come, and with good reason.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of companies out there who aren't ready for a complete epiphany - and I'd rather there be "stop-gap" measures (see: Picasa for Linux using an embedded copy of Wine) rather than Linux being frozen out completely. And with any luck, it can lead to *eventual* adoption of "our" way of doing things - e.g. games for Windows are now starting to use embedded Mono rather than Microsoft.NET - so the barrier for them to release on Linux is reduced (only the graphics engine needs porting, their scripting engine is now already portable). The again, everything bar the graphics being written in Python didn't help us get a port of Civilization 4.

Who knows. Time will tell.

[monsterstack]

Competition drives innovation. Whodathinkit?

Well yes. You can give me ten points obviousness I suppose. :P

Question is, which is the greater evil of the two?

Neither option is one I'd rather have, and I can't really make a choice between the two. If you put a gun to my head I'd have to go with Flash, purely because Adobe have never actually had a concerted effort to destroy Linux. Apples and oranges, though. Still there is a point to be made about the ARM netbooks coming soon: these are unlikely to support Windows at all, which means pretty much everything is up in the air at this point.

You're right at Nokia's crappy lobbying the w3c. I suppose all anyone can do is wait for the patents on media formats to end. Mp3 is due to end in 2010, I think. In any event it's stuff like this or this (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-6161760.html) [cnet.com] that makes me wary of any software even remotely associated with patents. Remember the .gif/.png fiasco?

Perhaps. But there are plenty of companies out there who aren't ready for a complete epiphany - and I'd rather there be "stop-gap" measures (see: Picasa for Linux using an embedded copy of Wine) rather than Linux being frozen out completely. And with any luck, it can lead to *eventual* adoption of "our" way of doing things - e.g. games for Windows are now starting to use embedded Mono rather than Microsoft.NET - so the barrier for them to release on Linux is reduced (only the graphics engine needs porting, their scripting engine is now already portable). The again, everything bar the graphics being written in Python didn't help us get a port of Civilization 4.

A slowly-slowly trickle is better than no movement at all, I agree. What I worry about is the threat of Linux people trying to do things "their" way more and more. Take Novell's gutless cave-in to Microsoft as an example. I think the community in general needs less of this behaviour.

[directhex]

Neither option is one I'd rather have, and I can't really make a choice between the two. If you put a gun to my head I'd have to go with Flash, purely because Adobe have never actually had a concerted effort to destroy Linux. Apples and oranges, though. Still there is a point to be made about the ARM netbooks coming soon: these are unlikely to support Windows at all, which means pretty much everything is up in the air at this point.

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/00-single/armless.png

Could be an interesting battle, really.

You're right at Nokia's crappy lobbying the w3c. I suppose all anyone can do is wait for the patents on media formats to end. Mp3 is due to end in 2010, I think. In any event it's stuff like this or this (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-6161760.html) [cnet.com] that makes me wary of any software even remotely associated with patents. Remember the .gif/.png fiasco?

'course, you know WHY Nokia lobbied against Free formats, right?

A slowly-slowly trickle is better than no movement at all, I agree. What I worry about is the threat of Linux people trying to do things "their" way more and more. Take Novell's gutless cave-in to Microsoft as an example. I think the community in general needs less of this behaviour.

I don't particularly like Novell's deal over patents, as it confuses and muddies the water over previously non-Novell products - like, say, Mono. But I think Moonlight is the right way to do things, actually - rather than Microsoft try to port their (traditionally crap) software to a platform they don't understand, a third party who knows the lie of the land does it for them. And recognizing the way the market is going, MS have helped rather than hindered that effort.

And I think Mono has already helped a few firms certainly evaluate moving to Linux, since they can look at hosting their internal ASP.NET and WinForms crap on Linux rather than Windows. Mono's MoMA tool is especially helpful since it even gives these companies a list of specific sections of their code which are non-portable (i.e. a TODO list). It's certainly much cheaper for them to move to Mono as their trickle than to start from scratch with Ruby or somesuch - and companies are going to go for the low-cost option any time. Whether moving to Mono is cheaper than sticking with MS.NET is the big question.

[gtr32]

If they WANT to focus on the Linux market, then the availability of things like Moonlight means they have the option of continuing to use the tools they're using, but simply need to do some QA to test it - or limit their use of APIs that aren't yet available.

Not to mention all the C# (or VB) applications written for .NET that could be used with Mono.

[monsterstack]

'course, you know WHY Nokia lobbied against Free formats, right?

Well there is this, their official complaint to w3c (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/24) [w3.org]:

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:05:30 +0200
From: mikko.honkala@nokia.com
To: connolly@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

we see benefit to publish a first WD of the HTML5 spec. To avoid any
patent issues we request deletion of the following clause from the spec
before it is published. We support publication under the condition this
change is made.

> "User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as
> well as the Ogg container format." in 3.14.7.1.


Of course in the patent minefield that is video-codecs, it seems a daft reason to jump on, considering Ogg's lack of patent issues. I have to admit some ignorance on this issue though: I am not so very knowledgeable on the whys and wherefores Nokia were truly against it, only that it annoyed me when I heard about it. I'll go out on a limb and take a guess that Nokia would stand to lose out valuable cross-licensing deals on their patent portfolio. Again I must state this is all opinionated guess-mongering™, however. If you can correct me on this matter I would be cool with that too.

rather than Microsoft try to port their (traditionally crap) software to a platform they don't understand, a third party who knows the lie of the land does it for them. And recognizing the way the market is going, MS have helped rather than hindered that effort.

I agree that the people to port such functionality should be the ones who know it best. But even so, the mono devs are essentially getting short-shift. The community at large could give back to the whole Silverlight project if it was free from start to finish; furthermore Microsoft would benefit from real interoperability for a change. It would be ten times easier to port it to any system users required. It's as if they're trying to be open, but doing it wrong. In my opinion it's easy to see why: having full Silverlight-esque functionality across all the OSes would mean Microsoft would lose control, and it would mean users and OEMs would have more options for their choice of OS. In other words, it's just another form of vendor lock-in. I have utmost respect for the guys trying to get all this stuff to work in Linux for our benefit, it just seems to me that they are being hindered simply because the stuff isn't free, and subsequently they will never have an opportunity to evolve it in new and interesting ways.

On people's personal computers, fine, run any code you wish. I have all sorts of proprietary stuff running to get my graphics working and what have you. I just don't think the internet should be part of that culture of closing things off. An internet with proper html and css and javascript standards across the board, with a variety of universally-supported free formats for all kinds of media is what we should be going for. Everything else, Flash and Silverlight included, are just sideshows to the real thing.

I know I'm talking dreamland fantasy stuff now. Everyone would prefer this state of affairs, but such as it is.

[directhex]

Well there is this, their official complaint to w3c (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/24) [w3.org]:

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:05:30 +0200
From: mikko.honkala@nokia.com
To: connolly@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

we see benefit to publish a first WD of the HTML5 spec. To avoid any
patent issues we request deletion of the following clause from the spec
before it is published. We support publication under the condition this
change is made.

> "User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as
> well as the Ogg container format." in 3.14.7.1.


Of course in the patent minefield that is video-codecs, it seems a daft reason to jump on, considering Ogg's lack of patent issues. I have to admit some ignorance on this issue though: I am not so very knowledgeable on the whys and wherefores Nokia were truly against it, only that it annoyed me when I heard about it. I'll go out on a limb and take a guess that Nokia would stand to lose out valuable cross-licensing deals on their patent portfolio. Again I must state this is all opinionated guess-mongering™, however. If you can correct me on this matter I would be cool with that too.

http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/TheoraHardware#Decoder

What DON'T you notice in that list which would concern a company who ship a lot of internet-enabled kit with DSP-based audio/video decoding?

[monsterstack]

Ah, I see. Or rather I don't see anyone at all. Thanks for the info.

[neighborlee]

perhaps their journalism isn't up to your standards but their sentiment is alright by me , I was a dedicated SuSe user until they made a deal with the devil .

DOnt you know thats what the pro mono people do, is knock down any possible , reasoned debate about such issues?

Did anyone note how nice and fair the original gentlemans questions was, yet right of the bat he was attacked ?

I dont think much else needs said, that if you cant debate something without throwing out ad-hominem bombastic attacks then you aren't here to have a reasonable debate, and what that leaves should tell everyone something about the current climate surrounding this issue.

We all know there are 'alternatives' to every single mono app, that come with 'zero' risk, so honestly there is zero reason to use mono, or any of its apps unless you just like taking risks; as if M$ ever does anything else but do its best to push profits while completely losing site of the boundries between good sound moral policies, which is what happens when your basis for existing is profit based ( can you say vista and smile at the sametime? ).

cheers
nl

[neighborlee]

perhaps their journalism isn't up to your standards but their sentiment is alright by me , i was a dedicated suse user until they made a deal with the devil .

+1

[neighborlee]

Why do people have to hate on Mono so much? It's fine, and the applications written in it (At least the ones I've used) are very high quality.

BUT OHNOES IT'S REMOTELY RELATED TO MICRO$$$$$$$$$$$OFT WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!11111

That is ridiculous ad hominem attack, and not worthy of the way this thread was started, and you should be ashamed.

cheers
lee

[neighborlee]

Nope, it's not. BoycottNovell is fiction, not fact.

Care to state facts , to present that the entire site is fiction, therefore stating as a result that the site has no redeeming value ?

That should take you QuiTE a while..get busy ;)

Then feel free to debate the issue if you dare, one on one with theowner of that site, in freenode.net at #boycottnovell...

Fair is fair..and it will be made public for all to see, as is all conversation in that channel.

cheers
lee

[neighborlee]

Like ffmpeg, for example? The way the Moonlight packages in every distro use ffmpeg?

Funny thing is, codecs (like MP3, needed by Silverlight amongst others) ARE patented - you can either violate the patents with ffmpeg, or use a patent-licensed decoder in the Microsoft Media Pack. Which is the lesser evil?

Lets be clear on something here..there is NO moonlight in fedora so to make a statement like this , is hardly accurate given:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight

Lesser evil , you must be kidding..show me someone who trusts M$ unswervingly, and I'll show you..well never mind , given the mess vista was and how people were ripped off considering how horrible it runs should speak volumnes as to the morality of M$ ( yes infering profit over usefulness; to this day I would love a refund of my hastles, but we know that wont' happen dont we ).

GIven the risk behind moonlight, who in their right mind doesn't have questions about mono , especially given M$'s track record.

cheers
nl

[directhex]

This thread will end dipped in chocolate and pure liquid awesome

It's like I'm clairvoyant or something.

[SKLP]

It's like I'm clairvoyant or something.

Indeed, lol

[gnomeuser]

Lets be clear on something here..there is NO moonlight in fedora so to make a statement like this , is hardly accurate given:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems#Moonlight

Lesser evil , you must be kidding..show me someone who trusts M$ unswervingly, and I'll show you..well never mind , given the mess vista was and how people were ripped off considering how horrible it runs should speak volumnes as to the morality of M$ ( yes infering profit over usefulness; to this day I would love a refund of my hastles, but we know that wont' happen dont we ).

GIven the risk behind moonlight, who in their right mind doesn't have questions about mono , especially given M$'s track record.

cheers
nl

Red Hat Legals liason with the Fedora community refuses to listen to reason. I have several times presented the Open Specification Promise for the XAML vocabulary granting use a free patent grant for implementing a system that talks XAML. He refuses to even take this to the Legal department. When I ask what patents they think are infringed upon I am told to ask Microsoft. I also already had to ask Mr. Calloway to change the text in the Forbidden Items entry for Moonlight once since he had taken to insulting Novell, a rather unprofessional approach and a clear show a personal bias (old revisions "magically" disappeared when we changed wikis though so digging it up might be hard).

This is not evidence based, this is dogma.

Now we can't include it for one very good reason, if we do it will depend on ffmpeg (which cannot ship in Fedora because it is not possible to break out the codecs which are patented), the only other option is relying on the proprietary codec pack as provided by Microsoft and that is, rightfully, felt to be against the spirit of Fedora. Also the latter solution very likely makes supporting the package rather hard.

Should Moonlight, as it has been talked about a few times, be ported to GStreamer the world would certainly look different. I don't know how this sits with the Silverlight 3 support for custom managed code only codecs (for which Vorbis and Dirac support is already present today).

So dogma and codecs, not Microsoft patents prevents Moonlight in Fedora. Even then will soon be able to get Moonlight via rpmfusion for your Fedora box, compiled against ffmpeg (and using patches provided by our very own directhex).

[gnomeuser]

That is ridiculous ad hominem attack, and not worthy of the way this thread was started, and you should be ashamed.

cheers
lee

That is NOT an ad hominem, an ad hominem would be attacking the person rather than the argument.

The general structure is "You're <something bad>, therefore <your claim> is false."

Note: I wasn't allowed the demonstration I posted even if it was purely to show off the structure for people to avoid commiting it. No camels where harmed I promise, and no offence was intended, merely education.

(solely a demonstration of the logical fallacy in question)

[neighborlee]

That is NOT an ad hominem, an ad hominem would be attacking the person rather than the argument e.g. You are wrong because you are the biproduct of regular camel raping.

(solely a demonstration of the logical fallacy in question)

consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. < from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

oops,sorry you missed that.

Good camel anology though, I guess that explains this tude, doesn't it:

<snip>

Good try,,and sorry for the words here,,they are HERS not mine, but it def.helps to illustrate my point, and there was no way to avoid the reference as that is how the url is formed.

If I could have hid it, trust me I would have.

cheers
nl
P.S>-= I am SO GROSSED out having had to post that url, but it was necessary to make a point,and probably just as well, it got filtered out, though if I choose I can just reference it elsewhere.

[gnomeuser]

consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. < from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

oops,sorry you missed that.


You will note that the OP did not reply to any claims, merely stated that these debates always devolve into "It's Microsoft, meaning it's bad". Ad hominems by their very definition require ignoring the argument and going after the person.

Now for some (quite a lot in my experience as a Mono SIG member in Fedora) people in these debates that is an accurate preception, for others I would grant it might be oversimplifying the argument.


Good camel anology though, I guess that explains this tude, doesn't it:

<snip>

Good try,,and sorry for the words here,,they are HERS not mine, but it def.helps to illustrate my point, and there was no way to avoid the reference as that is how the url is formed.

If I could have hid it, trust me I would have.

cheers
nl
P.S>-= I am SO GROSSED out having had to post that url, but it was necessary to make a point,and probably just as well, it got filtered out, though if I choose I can just reference it elsewhere.

Now that is funny, you are so disgusted by 7 innocent little words that you couldn't even manage to read the posting and put some context into things. Instead you elect to frame me by a blog title. Also you may want to learn about your friend tinyurl if you are so easily offended at urls that you can't post them.

You are directly attacking my person instead of my claim, now that is an ad hominem. Congratulations I guess?

Oh and I am a male, I even have my real picture up there in my avatar (and as my blog image, plus the blog is directly registered in my full real name - David Nielsen, right there as part of the URL even). The tiniest bit of research would have revealed that, I have never intentionally hidden who I am or how to contact me.

[monsterstack]

This is probably old news to most people following this thread, but I haven't been interested in the mono debate for long. I thought maybe some of you might like to see this.

I have been getting lots of "Linux is doomed" type messages lately, what with Windows 7 coming out soon and what have you. I remember seeing USENET posts along similar lines for pretty much every Microsoft release. So I decided to have a search through so I could just quote a troll of long ago in response. Along the way I found this interesting tidbit re the great mono debate. This one about Microsoft's .NET coming to Linux from 2000 (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/browse_thread/thread/3e0127e29a88293d/f30f9f758c33d418) [comp.os.linux] [google-groups]!

.NET's scope was different back then, of course, and people reckoned it would be Corel that would port the framework to Linux instead of Novell. Even so, in that thread you pretty much get everything people have been arguing about. The GPL stuff, the embrace/extend/extinguish stuff, arguments about how useful the language will be from a technical standpoint, blah blah blah, the whole shebang.

Seems nothing changes much. :)

[gnomeuser]

This is probably old news to most people following this thread, but I haven't been interested in the mono debate for long. I thought maybe some of you might like to see this.

I have been getting lots of "Linux is doomed" type messages lately, what with Windows 7 coming out soon and what have you. I remember seeing USENET posts along similar lines for pretty much every Microsoft release. So I decided to have a search through so I could just quote a troll of long ago in response. Along the way I found this interesting tidbit re the great mono debate. This one about Microsoft's .NET coming to Linux from 2000 (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/browse_thread/thread/3e0127e29a88293d/f30f9f758c33d418) [comp.os.linux] [google-groups]!

.NET's scope was different back then, of course, and people reckoned it would be Corel that would port the framework to Linux instead of Novell. Even so, in that thread you pretty much get everything people have been arguing about. The GPL stuff, the embrace/extend/extinguish stuff, arguments about how useful the language will be from a technical standpoint, blah blah blah, the whole shebang.

Seems nothing changes much. :)

Just as an aside, it wasn't Novell who ported .NET. Firstly porting implies that they looked at the original code (which would definitely be legally problematic), reimplemented from the ECMA standard and design papers is probably more correct. Novell didn't start the Mono project, it was a company started by Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza called Ximian (also known as Intl. GNOME Support and Helix Code previously).

When Novell decided to get into Linux, Ximian was the first company they bought. There was talk of them buying Red Hat as well but they ended up buying SUSE. Thus we have Novell involved heavily in Linux amongst other things developing Mono.

A little history lesson.

[neighborlee]

This is probably old news to most people following this thread, but I haven't been interested in the mono debate for long. I thought maybe some of you might like to see this.

I have been getting lots of "Linux is doomed" type messages lately, what with Windows 7 coming out soon and what have you. I remember seeing USENET posts along similar lines for pretty much every Microsoft release. So I decided to have a search through so I could just quote a troll of long ago in response. Along the way I found this interesting tidbit re the great mono debate. This one about Microsoft's .NET coming to Linux from 2000 (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux/browse_thread/thread/3e0127e29a88293d/f30f9f758c33d418) [comp.os.linux] [google-groups]!

.NET's scope was different back then, of course, and people reckoned it would be Corel that would port the framework to Linux instead of Novell. Even so, in that thread you pretty much get everything people have been arguing about. The GPL stuff, the embrace/extend/extinguish stuff, arguments about how useful the language will be from a technical standpoint, blah blah blah, the whole shebang.

Seems nothing changes much. :)

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23501/1090/ <

,,,and then there is that ..thx for your post that was revealing considering the time period..and now...and to think ubuntu is JUST OK with shipping as part of the default OS, while fedora avoids it at least ( whatever the reason, its gone ) in the livecd, I cant verify dvd atm ), and BLAG avoids it entirely in their one livecd, GO THEM!.

Someone in the community gets the patent problem at least , and is willing to stick up for free, open source software when it matters the most.

It would be lovely, for all concerned for many reasons, if we could trust M$, but they reveal time and time again, they can't be , and this latest URL showcases that very completely . IF you trust them fine your choice, but average people deserve the truth that protects them from choices that otherwise will cause them harm; that is what people that care about others, do.

At least they weren't successful with blocking ODT ( windows 7 , its there in wordpad , and its because their format LOST ), and with steady resistance ( its not FUTILE people ! ;) .. ) mono will be gone soon too. It already is from BLAG, and I urge you, if FOSS means anything to you, to consider using that or at least consider its values, as then and then only will FOSS remain true to its principles, and thereby reamin,- free and open.

cheers
nl

[directhex]

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23501/1090/ <

,,,and then there is that ..thx for your post that was revealing considering the time period..and now...and to think ubuntu is JUST OK with shipping as part of the default OS, while fedora avoids it at least ( whatever the reason, its gone ) in the livecd, I cant verify dvd atm ), and BLAG avoids it entirely in their one livecd, GO THEM!.

Someone in the community gets the patent problem at least , and is willing to stick up for free, open source software when it matters the most.

It would be lovely, for all concerned for many reasons, if we could trust M$, but they reveal time and time again, they can't be , and this latest URL showcases that very completely . IF you trust them fine your choice, but average people deserve the truth that protects them from choices that otherwise will cause them harm; that is what people that care about others, do.

At least they weren't successful with blocking ODT ( windows 7 , its there in wordpad , and its because their format LOST ), and with steady resistance ( its not FUTILE people ! ;) .. ) mono will be gone soon too. It already is from BLAG, and I urge you, if FOSS means anything to you, to consider using that or at least consider its values, as then and then only will FOSS remain true to its principles, and thereby reamin,- free and open.

cheers
nl

Is it worth pointing out the demagogy and inaccuracy in your link, or is it wasted effort considering who I'm replying to? Should I waste my time on it?

[gnomeuser]

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/23501/1090/ <

,,,and then there is that ..thx for your post that was revealing considering the time period..and now...and to think ubuntu is JUST OK with shipping as part of the default OS, while fedora avoids it at least ( whatever the reason, its gone ) in the livecd, I cant verify dvd atm ), and BLAG avoids it entirely in their one livecd, GO THEM!.


space concerns, if Mono was legally problematic like a fringe in Fedora says it would be removed. Yet despite being encouraged by me, the former Fedora Mono SIG leader, to put that to the test and propose it as a feature to remove Mono from Fedora, they never have. Mono is part of Fedora and as such it lives up to the strict freedom requirements presented by Fedora.

Cease using Monos absence from the Fedora livecd as an argument for Mono's supposed illegality.

[directhex]

Cease using Monos absence from the Fedora livecd as an argument for Mono's supposed illegality.

You assume honest debate?

[gnomeuser]

You assume honest debate?

I have not grown to expect that from the BN crowd but I hope never the less, the best I can do is to be honest and present verfiable fact.

[monsterstack]

Just as an aside, it wasn't Novell who ported .NET. Firstly porting implies that they looked at the original code (which would definitely be legally problematic), reimplemented from the ECMA standard and design papers is probably more correct. Novell didn't start the Mono project, it was a company started by Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza called Ximian (also known as Intl. GNOME Support and Helix Code previously).

When Novell decided to get into Linux, Ximian was the first company they bought. There was talk of them buying Red Hat as well but they ended up buying SUSE. Thus we have Novell involved heavily in Linux amongst other things developing Mono.

A little history lesson.

Ah, thanks. :)

[GOfree]

Hi. Thanks everybody. If this is a long-standing debate, it is still new to me. I appreciate the good arguments and balanced discussion.

When I (recently) heard about mono, I was at first excited. I would possibly be able to run MTGO from WINE. Woo-hoo!

Now, I am not so sure... I am admittedly rather paranoid about Microsoft and its (apparent) attempts at world domination. :-|

If the Linux community can do this without becoming dependent on or beholden to Microsoft (or Novell, for that matter) than great. Just to be safe, I hope we are developing other alternatives now anyway.

Otherwise, I would gladly give up my online gaming if it means maintaining this small degree of independence from corporate control that I know as "linux".

[neighborlee]

You assume honest debate?

It's pathetic you resort to personal attacks, when none are warranted, and certainly none needed nor desireable,- but that is what you get it appears from those whom fear an outcome other than what they expect and thus recoil in resistance with anger and venom.

We show you why we feel the way we do, and all you have in return is more comments from people 'like that-'..and to think you look for respect in your views, but give zero in return.

You have succeeded in showcasing your true agenda though you sat out to do just the opposite,- by 'trying' to make us look bad you had hoped to make yourselves look like the 'high'er authority in this debate, and in reality took the 'low' road. Talk about religion, I think a well respected member of religious circles warns us about high and low roads ?

Linux will succeed in spite of your attempts { and the FOSS it stands for unlike the patent minefield mono is as this and many other [remember PJ -groklaw-? ]) have pointed out, and when it does it will know who its champions of justice were and who attempted to tear it down.

You might think few know about this, but there are others who will continue to fight against oppression as well, and reference high quality url's that legitmately showcase why the worry isn't fantasy:

http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/146

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454

You can disagree, its a free country and no one should be trying to thrwart anyones right to offer their views, but the debate is out there, wont go away just because you want it to, and other people continue to see these techs for what they are.

cheers
nl

[directhex]

It's pathetic you resort to personal attacks, when none are warranted, and certainly none needed nor desireable,- but that is what you get it appears from those whom fear an outcome other than what they expect and thus recoil in resistance with anger and venom.

We show you why we feel the way we do, and all you have in return is more comments from people 'like that-'..and to think you look for respect in your views, but give zero in return.

You have succeeded in showcasing your true agenda though you sat out to do just the opposite,- by 'trying' to make us look bad you had hoped to make yourselves look like the 'high'er authority in this debate, and in reality took the 'low' road. Talk about religion, I think a well respected member of religious circles warns us about high and low roads ?

Linux will succeed in spite of your attempts { and the FOSS it stands for unlike the patent minefield mono is as this and many other [remember PJ -groklaw-? ]) have pointed out, and when it does it will know who its champions of justice were and who attempted to tear it down.

You might think few know about this, but there are others who will continue to fight against oppression as well, and reference high quality url's that legitmately showcase why the worry isn't fantasy:

http://nocturn.vsbnet.be/node/146

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454

You can disagree, its a free country and no one should be trying to thrwart anyones right to offer their views, but the debate is out there, wont go away just because you want it to, and other people continue to see these techs for what they are.

cheers
nl

Why do you keep linking to things about Moonlight in a post about Mono? Do you understand the difference between them? If not, then ask. If yes, then you're attempting to deceive by sending people off to look at unrelated topics.

[neighborlee]

Why do you keep linking to things about Moonlight in a post about Mono? Do you understand the difference between them? If not, then ask. If yes, then you're attempting to deceive by sending people off to look at unrelated topics.

Why bother debating this , your wasting my time by not reading url's.

cheers
nl

[directhex]

Why bother debating this , your wasting my time by not reading url's.

cheers
nl

Oh, I'M wasting YOUR time? Let's see, your "completely on topic" URLS would be entitled "Shining Some Light on Microsoft's Moonlight Covenant" and "If mono brings doubt, moonlight sheds light"

So I'm wrong when I say your URLs are about Moonlight, changing the subject of the original post (Mono)? Really?

[dmizer]

Sorry folks, I think this debate's gone a bit too far.

[monsterstack]

We can all agree that there are ridiculous, insane flame wars about mono all over the internet. As such, flame wars are often the result of many threads even here in sunny old UbuntuForums. There is a lot of confusion pretty much everywhere you look. Personally, I think it can be alarming for people coming across the controversy for the first time. I've read quite a lot about mono; and for the most part I am ambivalent (but I have my doubts about Moonlight, so I'm probably not the best person to go ahead and start this). Still, it pains me to see people posting insane things about mono whether they support it or reject it.

So here's my idea. There are users here who actively develop with mono, and users who actively develop in other, rival languages, and probably some who do both. I'd say these guys are going to be pretty knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the technical details. I've also seen people post pertinent stuff about the licensing, the patents, the ECMA standard, and all of the other stuff people disagree about. What I find is that these posts are separated by a vast gulf of misinformation and vitriol, and it really doesn't help. I think we need an FAQ thread about the controversy, and have it stickied in Recurring Discussions. The OP should be modified over time to incorporate whatever happens in the thread. It should identify every single controversy people can think of, and include evidence both for and against (if it exists).

It should give no judgement at all, only conclusive proof of the facts. It should be presented in an unbiased way as possible. I know that's going to be difficult, but I don't see why it can't be done. Relevant links or even a brief description of mono, what it is, and what it does, might also be a good idea. Anyhow, I think the discussion on the controversy could go something like,

What's the fuss about $problem_x?
Some people are concerned about $x and $y having an effect on $z and $g.

Is it really a problem?
Some people think it is a problem because of reasons $a, $b and $c. However, others reject that it is a problem because of reasons $d, $e and $f.

A good idea anybody? Would anybody be interested in giving it a go? Please don't turn this thread into a flame war about mono. Whatever your opinions are about mono, the controversy exists, and it's depressing to see it go on and on. I don't think people will ever stop arguing about it, but maybe we can stem the tide of flame wars and threads going off-topic on UbuntuForums.

[suitedaces]

I'd like an objective one too that puts both arguments in layman's terms.

[monsterstack]

I'd like an objective one too that puts both arguments in layman's terms.

Absolutely. It shouldn't just be a morass of gobbledygook. I want people who've just clicked on a link to an article about "MONO WILL DESTROY LINUX!" to think, "What the hell? what is this mono!? Should I be worried? ah, I wonder if anybody on UF knows about it." And then promptly go and discover the FAQ that tells him everything he needs to know without hyperbole, rhetoric or confusion.

[Dragonbite]

I would think a Wiki would work better because a Mono thread is just as prone to flaming from both sides of the fence while a Wiki tracks WHO changes WHAT and that little bit of accountability may keep less-learned people from making changes.

The downside, though, is the Wiki doesn't get the same attendance and in its current state, is so large it's difficult to manage.

Although, having a Wiki page that describes it, and then being able to point people to it when arguments start may be a good mixture of both worlds.

EDIT: I didn't notice the poll choices. Ooops! ;)

[dixiedancer]

I never had mono, but I heard it can be spread by kissing. One kid at school got it and in a couple of months a whole bunch of kids were out sick with it.

(I know, totally off topic... I just can't resist a pun).

-Robin

[Dragonbite]

I never had mono, but I heard it can be spread by kissing. One kid at school got it and in a couple of months a whole bunch of kids were out sick with it.

(I know, totally off topic... I just can't resist a pun).

-Robin

I started dating a girl while I was home from College over Christmas break. Shortly after returning to school I started feeling sick. Eventually I stopped by the school nurse's office.

A couple days later I saw her in the cafeteria, she said the results were back and that I was "getting over mono".

What a way to start off a relationship (didn't scare me off, though, because now she'll be my wife of 13 years this July!)

[Giant Speck]

Because all threads on UF -- whether the topic be mono, Microsoft, Tux's gender, or puppies -- are bound to decend into chaotic madness.

[fatality_uk]

Because all threads on UF -- whether the topic be mono, Microsoft, Tux's gender, or puppies -- are bound to decend into chaotic madness.

Nonsense. A free, open and adult debate never hurt anyone and there are plenty of these on UF

[bashveank]

A wiki would be miles better than a comprehensive thread. Large consolidated threads have too much information. People just end up feeling intimidated and skipping over them.

[UbuKunubi]

I dont want mono on my system. How do i remove it?

[monsterstack]

I dont want mono on my system. How do i remove it?

sudo apt-get remove --purge mono-common libmono0

[UbuKunubi]

Thanks for your reply.
All the best,
Ubu

[anechoic]

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/06/opposition-to-mono-by-default/

[TheIdiotThatIsMe]

I've read the report. I think the Mono issue really is overblown, although I know there are others who have a very strong passion on one side or the other. Unfortunately, it's been brought up many many times, and nothing has really come of it. There are good arguments for both ways. I can see if gNewSense would like to take Mono out, but I think for now Ubuntu's stance has been pretty clear on keeping a balance between practicality and ideals.

[alternatealias]

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/06/opposition-to-mono-by-default/

If you actually read Roy's "evidence", you'll notice that it's a gross exaggeration of what really happened (in other words, it's a lie). His friend Neighborlee was caught trolling this forum and given a warning. Neighborlee then blew that warning way out of proportion and ran crying to Roy who in turn quickly began a smear campaign against Ubuntu and Canonical with 4+ "news stories" all insinuating that Canonical/Ubuntu are censoring opinions of people who are against the inclusion of Mono.

If Roy is so willing to twist the "facts" and then spread this misinformation to as many Linux news sites as he could (LinuxToday, FSDaily, Digg, Reddit, etc), how twisted do you think his "facts" are against Mono and Novell? Think about that.




1. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/01/banning-opposition-to-mono/

2. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/06/opposition-to-mono-by-default/

3. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/08/microsoft-mono-embrace-extend-extinguish/

"Mono fans are meanwhile censoring opposers of Mono over in Ubuntu."


4. http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/

[directhex]

I've read the report. I think the Mono issue really is overblown, although I know there are others who have a very strong passion on one side or the other. Unfortunately, it's been brought up many many times, and nothing has really come of it. There are good arguments for both ways. I can see if gNewSense would like to take Mono out, but I think for now Ubuntu's stance has been pretty clear on keeping a balance between practicality and ideals.

gNewSense includes Mono by default (except on MIPS)

[Dragonbite]

Heck, if you don't want Mono, it looks like Fedora 12 is going to try and be Mono-free and use alternatives such as gNote instead of Tomboy.

Just hope they can come up with or develop an equivalent to F-Spot for Gnome, otherwise Picasa and gThumbs should be getting a boost in popularity.

[danielrmt]

gNewSense includes Mono by default (except on MIPS)

That makes sense, because Mono is open source, and free as in freedom, no matter what people say.

[dragos240]

ubuntu-desktop is a meta package, it's okay to remove it, it will not do any harm, I have mine removed. Just sudo apt-get remove mono.

[z0mbie]

Mono is very troublesome, it's already created a split in the community. Why is there a desparate need to have Mono anyway? It seems like most people think it's equivalent to the Linux kernel. I say leave Ubuntu vanilla install Mono free, and let the user install whatever they like. This will prevent further controversy and make the default install very light weight also.

[dragos240]

Mono is very troublesome, it's already created a split in the community. Why is there a desparate need to have Mono anyway? It seems like most people think it's equivalent to the Linux kernel. I say leave Ubuntu vanilla install Mono free, and let the user install whatever they like. This will prevent further controversy and make the default install very light weight also.

If you want exactly what you want and nothing else, get arch :)

[z0mbie]

If you want exactly what you want and nothing else, get arch :)

That would mean I would have to abandon my favorite distribution. :/

[Dragonbite]

I think I would prefer if Mono was not installed by default, and popular mono-based applications has non-mono equivalents as alternatives. For example, gThumbs is an image viewer while F-Spot is an image manager. The other applications that may be comparable are digiKam and Picasa. Since Picasa is not FOSS and relies on WINE to run in Linux I do not want to see that application be propped up as the replacement.

I would also want Mono to be very easy to install if one so chooses. I use .NET at work and if I want to bring that capability home, where all I have is Linux, then I would like to be able to use Mono.

Ubuntu has done a good job about bringing up Flash installation when appropriate, and making it easy to choose to or not to. If Mono is just as easy then that would be great.

At least with Fedora and openSUSE you can select what you want if you download the entire DVD (or do a NetInstall). I just don't have luck with DVDs.

[alternatealias]

Mono is very troublesome, it's already created a split in the community. Why is there a desparate need to have Mono anyway? It seems like most people think it's equivalent to the Linux kernel. I say leave Ubuntu vanilla install Mono free, and let the user install whatever they like. This will prevent further controversy and make the default install very light weight also.

If the community is split, it's only because trolls like Roy Schestowitz are driving a wedge into it for their own personal fame and power. If he was in it for the right reasons, then he wouldn't be trying to smear Mono everywhere he can on the internet or bashing it every day for several years in a row. Instead, he'd respectfully try to reach an agreement with the parties involved.

If people were more respectful of other people's choices to use what they wanted to use, then there would be no controversy.

I don't think the Mono developers care if you prefer to use alternative applications or not. They have respect for others' choices. The anti-Mono crowd, however, are intolerant of Mono and are the ones that show no respect for anyone else when they viciously attack Mono, the developers, and people on the Ubuntu mailing-lists (for example).

[zekopeko]

<snip>.

Ubuntu has done a good job about bringing up Flash installation when appropriate, and making it easy to choose to or not to. If Mono is just as easy then that would be great.

<snip>.

you are comparing free software to a closed source browser plugin?

[alternatealias]

you are comparing free software to a closed source browser plugin?

The holy war against Mono has forsaken logic in favor of blind hatred.

[Dragonbite]

you are comparing free software to a closed source browser plugin?

No, I am saying that my hope is they keep Mono being as easy to install as other applications (and as up-to-date as possible) and not get so "holier than thou" as ot put it into a seperate repository or make you jump hoops to install.

Probably a better Flash comparison isn't Mono, but Moonlight! The first time you go to a page running Silverlight, have the same thing happen as Flash in Firefox, asking if you want to install Moonlight.

[directhex]

The first time you go to a page running Silverlight, have the same thing happen as Flash in Firefox, asking if you want to install Moonlight.

click here (http://retro.apebox.org/test.html)

Does that work as expected?

Slightly off-topic, but...

[Dragonbite]

click here (http://retro.apebox.org/test.html)

Does that work as expected?

Slightly off-topic, but...

Not in Windows ;) (I'm at work on XP)

[directhex]

Not in Windows ;) (I'm at work on XP)

That would be as-intended! It should only do anything on Firefox on Ubuntu

[rhys_rhaven]

I just wanted to add my vote as it were, to please remove Mono from the "ubuntu desktop" and find replacements to fspot and tomboy.

Having the Mono and Moonlight projects is very nice. .NET is a great setup for many users, often Windows developers, and makes Ubuntu more palatable as a product. Keep it in the repositories.

And yet, Ubuntu is supposed to work "as if people mattered." Linux distributions try to pick the best technical solution, the one with the most freedom, the one that won't get you in legal troubles or lock you into a single vendor. And regardless that Mono is open source, nothing tied that closely to Microsoft will be good for users.

I work with Microsoft products every day. They often excellent, and technically superior to a majority of their competitors, including thing in the FOSS computer. What do you expect with that much paid talent? There are real reasons they are on top. But Microsoft as a company has shown time and time again, it does not give a damn about anyone or anything except profits and control.

.NET may have been created in good intentions. But Linux is a competitor. And you will see nothing but destruction by using a MS technology in Linux. I point you to JavaScript/JScript and Java/J++. Know your history, Mono is a mistake in the core of any Linux OS.

[Sublime Porte]

Regardless of if you're pro or anti mono... the question that really needs to be asked is, is there any real need for it? Is Linux that lacking in development tools that the best we can do is concoct an implementation of Microsoft's framework? (regardless of how 'open' its specification is)

I've got no objections to it being an optional package you can install, if you require it. But I can see absolutely no justifiable reason for why it has to be part of the default install. Linux has always been a rich environment for programmers, perhaps the richest, so why all of a sudden can we not do without mono? If you like C# syntax or something, then use Vala. If there's some other overwhelming reason why we need it, then I'm all ears... but I can't for the life of me think of what it might be.

[zekopeko]

I just wanted to add my vote as it were, to please remove Mono from the "ubuntu desktop" and find replacements to fspot and tomboy.

Having the Mono and Moonlight projects is very nice. .NET is a great setup for many users, often Windows developers, and makes Ubuntu more palatable as a product. Keep it in the repositories.

And yet, Ubuntu is supposed to work "as if people mattered." Linux distributions try to pick the best technical solution, the one with the most freedom, the one that won't get you in legal troubles or lock you into a single vendor. And regardless that Mono is open source, nothing tied that closely to Microsoft will be good for users.

I work with Microsoft products every day. They often excellent, and technically superior to a majority of their competitors, including thing in the FOSS computer. What do you expect with that much paid talent? There are real reasons they are on top. But Microsoft as a company has shown time and time again, it does not give a damn about anyone or anything except profits and control.

.NET may have been created in good intentions. But Linux is a competitor. And you will see nothing but destruction by using a MS technology in Linux. I point you to JavaScript/JScript and Java/J++. Know your history, Mono is a mistake in the core of any Linux OS.

troll. Microsoft has changed the course. they are getting involved with open source in an escalating manner.
there is an arstehnica article with deeper insight about the change that is brewing in the dungeons of redmond.

[alternatealias]

Regardless of if you're pro or anti mono... the question that really needs to be asked is, is there any real need for it?

Yes. Absolutely there is.

.NET is the next generation of programming environments that builds on the benefits of Java.

There's a lot more to .NET than the C# syntax, so Vala isn't enough.

- .NET brings along the potential to compile once, run everywhere. As long as your program does not call into native libraries, your program can be run anywhere that there is a .NET runtime.

- It brings along garbage collection which largely solves (or at least assists in solving) object life cycle issues that plague just about every software project out there (aka memory leaks).

- It has a very nice and extensive core library which standard C and C++ lack

- It brings along the ability to sandbox code.

- It brings better parallel programming APIs which help programmers take advantage of the latest multi-core CPUs far easier than you can in C or C++

- It allows applications to be written in mixed languages far more easily than other platforms

- Mono's new SIMD stuff is amazing, it recognizes code patterns and, if the host CPU supports it, will optimize said code (at runtime!) to use SIMD. No other platform provides this functionality.

- Extremely easy to write bindings to native libraries (1 very short line of code).

- Performance of .NET is very good, often on par with native code. Mono is slower than .NET but is making great strides in this area all the time.

- The C# syntax saves a lot of typing and is very easy to learn and also very powerful.


These are just the things I can list off the top of my head, there are doubtless many many more.

[directhex]

Regardless of if you're pro or anti mono... the question that really needs to be asked is, is there any real need for it? Is Linux that lacking in development tools that the best we can do is concoct an implementation of Microsoft's framework? (regardless of how 'open' its specification is)

I've got no objections to it being an optional package you can install, if you require it. But I can see absolutely no justifiable reason for why it has to be part of the default install. Linux has always been a rich environment for programmers, perhaps the richest, so why all of a sudden can we not do without mono? If you like C# syntax or something, then use Vala. If there's some other overwhelming reason why we need it, then I'm all ears... but I can't for the life of me think of what it might be.

.NET is not part of the default install. What's part of the default install is the libraries required to run what are considered best-of-breed apps for users. Ubuntu doesn't ship with a .NET compatibility infrastructure, it ships with the libs needed to run Tomboy and F-Spot - which means some (not all) of Mono. If other apps written in other languages are better, then they get used. Not rocket science. And not to be confused.

[Sublime Porte]

.NET is the next generation of programming environments that builds on the benefits of Java.

I meant features, not one-liner advertisements.

But the reference to Java does raise a good point, why not just build on java? Since it is now open source, wouldn't it be better to build on the benefits of Java ourselves, and make a framework that's more suited to our environment and circumstances?

There's a lot more to .NET than the C# syntax, so Vala isn't enough.

As I said, _IF_ it's the syntax. The ironic thing is, you then went on to list the syntax as one of the merits of.NET/Mono... "The C# syntax saves a lot of typing and is very easy to learn and also very powerful".

- .NET brings along the potential to compile once, run everywhere. As long as your program does not call into native libraries, your program can be run anywhere that there is a .NET runtime.

Nothing new from Java here. Are you sure it's compile once run everywhere? Can I compile a program in Mono on Linux and run it on Windows, assuming I have .net framework installed of course?

- It brings along garbage collection which largely solves (or at least assists in solving) object life cycle issues that plague just about every software project out there (aka memory leaks).

Java has garbage collection, as do most modern languages built around Linux.

- It has a very nice and extensive core library which standard C and C++ lack

Again so does Java, as does Python etc. Anyway as far as I'm aware .Net and therefore Mono as well I would assume is language independant, so wouldn't that actually be a feature of individual languages implemented in .Net rather than .Net itself?

- It allows applications to be written in mixed languages far more easily than other platforms

As do most languages based around Linux.

Performance of .NET is very good, often on par with native code. Mono is slower than .NET but is making great strides in this area all the time.

That's debateable.

You've made a poor case IMHO, in fact about all you've explained is that .Net is a lot like Java...

[directhex]

But the reference to Java does raise a good point, why not just build on java? Since it is now open source, wouldn't it be better to build on the benefits of Java ourselves, and make a framework that's more suited to our environment and circumstances?

Actually, Java is NOT well suited. At its core: Mono has been Free for 7 years, OpenJDK for about 2; Mono with 2 full apps takes up about 50 meg on disk, OpenJDK with zero apps takes up 100+ (thanks to the spaghetti of Java's class library, you can't distinguish between "useful" parts and "junk" parts to minimize that); .NET (and Mono by extension) makes it trivial to make use of existing C-based libraries inside your app, Java is an exercise in pain and suffering.

Ever noticed the distinct lack of desktop apps for GNOME written in Java? FWIW Java 7 promises to remedy many of Java's shortcomings - but that's not out yet, and until then, developers must write with what they have NOW

Nothing new from Java here. Are you sure it's compile once run everywhere? Can I compile a program in Mono on Linux and run it on Windows, assuming I have .net framework installed of course?

Assuming you are only using libraries available on both systems, then yes, definitely - and the reverse is also true.

Again so does Java, as does Python etc. Anyway as far as I'm aware .Net and therefore Mono as well I would assume is language independant, so wouldn't that actually be a feature of individual languages implemented in .Net rather than .Net itself?



As do most languages based around Linux.

No, that's his point. .NET is designed to be multi-language, such that (as an example) a library written in LOLCODE.NET can be used directly within Visual Basic.NET, no strings attached. The same libs are shared by ALL languages running on the framework, meaning there's no reinventing of wheels needed to, say, draw a GUI using Boo or Nemerle, once the bindings to do so are written in C#. There are a few Java-based languages such as Jython, but the Java bytecode is not designed for it, whereas it was a design goal from day 1 with .NET

[Dragonbite]

And yet, Ubuntu is supposed to work "as if people mattered." Linux distributions try to pick the best technical solution, the one with the most freedom, the one that won't get you in legal troubles or lock you into a single vendor.

You mean things like UbuntuOne, being Ubuntu-only? There's no "vendor lock-in" there?

Regardless of if you're pro or anti mono... the question that really needs to be asked is, is there any real need for it? Is Linux that lacking in development tools that the best we can do is concoct an implementation of Microsoft's framework?

Yes, it is needed.

There is a pool of thousands, if not millions of developers out there who are brought up in the Microsoft world and who are not interested in jumping to Python scripts or Java and such.

Do you see an alternative to F-Spot for Gnome that is as full-featured? No? Then that answers the question "do we need Mono?" because for whatever reason, before Mono and developers willing to build things in Mono, there was nobody interested in taking photo management beyond gThumbs. Would those same developers had been interested if they had to migrate over to Eclipse or NetBeans and learn the differences between C# and Java?

And let us not forget that in enterprises, .NET is pretty widely used. Not sure about your area, but I see a LOT more .NET job openings than Java openings around here! Mono is a technology that helps Linux into Enterprises and Enterprises are(is?) where the money is that Linux needs to keep growing at this pace. Look how many developers for Linux are employed specifically to work on Linux.

[Sublime Porte]

You mean things like UbuntuOne, being Ubuntu-only? There's no "vendor lock-in" there?

You're free to use dropbox (or whatever you like, webdav onto your own webhost etc). No lockin. Is UbuntuOne an integral part of the OS? Is it is even a part of the OS at all? Not as of yet, I don't think.

Do you see an alternative to F-Spot for Gnome that is as full-featured?

F-Spot is full featured? Depends what you mean by full featured, I personally never even opened it before, ditto for tomboy. These two programs are pretty spartan when it comes to features, so if they're your best excuse for why mono is a necessity, then you've lost me there.

And let us not forget that in enterprises, .NET is pretty widely used. Not sure about your area, but I see a LOT more .NET job openings than Java openings around here!

I've heard people claim this before, but after doing a little research, Java jobs came up much higher in my country (Australia), and even then a lot of .Net jobs asked for Java experience as a bonus anyway.

Mono is a technology that helps Linux into Enterprises and Enterprises are(is?) where the money is that Linux needs to keep growing at this pace

I'd say most enterprise implementations of Linux are replacing legacy Unix systems, not Microsoft systems. So .Net is probably not that big a deal to them.

Linux has grown mostly because of its community, not because of its funding. The vast majority of development for Linux is done by volunteers, not by employees.

[alternatealias]

F-Spot is full featured? Depends what you mean by full featured, I personally never even opened it before, ditto for tomboy. These two programs are pretty spartan when it comes to features, so if they're your best excuse for why mono is a necessity, then you've lost me there.

If you've never used the applications, how could you possibly state that they are spartan when it comes to features?

I smell a troll.

[Dragonbite]

You're free to use dropbox (or whatever you like, webdav onto your own webhost etc). No lockin. Is UbuntuOne an integral part of the OS? Is it is even a part of the OS at all? Not as of yet, I don't think.

Ahh.. but once you will start using UbuntuOne, you cannot, at this time, move to Fedora, Windows or any other non-Ubuntu distribution without loosing access to UbuntuOne. That's is lock-in.

Dropbox is an alternative, like Linux is for Windows.

F-Spot is full featured? Depends what you mean by full featured, I personally never even opened it before, ditto for tomboy.

So basically your opinion on these applications is 3rd party hearsay at best?

I've heard people claim this before, but after doing a little research, Java jobs came up much higher in my country (Australia), and even then a lot of .Net jobs asked for Java experience as a bonus anyway.

YMMV

Linux has grown mostly because of its community, not because of its funding. The vast majority of development for Linux is done by volunteers, not by employees.

Neither one of us has the numbers for that so it's a piss contest.

I was just thinking of all of the times I hear the Ubuntu is developed by Canonical employees, Fedora developed by Red Hat employees and openSUSE developed by Novell employees plus the number of projects that these companies (not individuals) are listed as participating in the development of open source projects like the kernel and such. Even Java was developed by Sun employees.

And of course, Mono is developed by some Novell employees as well as individuals.

[Sublime Porte]

alternatealias,

If you've never used the applications, how could you possibly state that they are spartan when it comes to features?

I've seen others attempt to use it, and end up not bothering, since the features were simply not sufficient.

I smell a troll.

I doubt you'd know a troll if it slapped you in the face. Hint, A troll is _NOT_ someone who merely holds a different opinion to yours, seems to be the favourite catchphrase for some around here though, when faced with an apparently differing opinion. Learn to explain your opinions and elaborate on their supposed merits, rather than just jumping on the troll button everytime someone says something you don't personally subscribe to.

dragonbite,

Ahh.. but once you will start using UbuntuOne

So don't start using it, simple. Besides, I'm not necessarily an Ubuntu advocate. I believe in Freedom of software, whether that means on Ubuntu, Debian, Puppy, FreeBSD whatever, I'm not particularly phased. I'm more worried about the potential prospects for freedom, which is why my instincts tell me mono is no good. Since it is inevitably tied to Microsoft. Even if you'd like to believe that theoretically according to ECMA standards blah blah blah it is not.. In the end, it leads all the way back to Redmond. I personally don't want to risk my OS investment on that.

So basically your opinion on these applications is 3rd party hearsay at best?

I've seen them fired up.

I was just thinking of all of the times I hear the Ubuntu is developed by Canonical employees...

Ubuntu, Fedora & OpenSuse are distributions. Most of the work within distributions is packaging and bug fixing, not coding. The coding is done by ther various projects, most of which are not-for-profit foundations, run by volunteers, or even just individual coders. Which company funds and pays the Kernel hackers?

Also the top 10 distros, according to distrowatch are:

1) Ubuntu - Foundation/Community
2) OpenSuse - Company
3) Mint - Community
4) Fedora - Company
5) Debian - Community
6) Mandriva - Company
7) PCLinuxOS - Community
8) Puppy - Community
9) Sabayon - Community
10) CentOS - Community

Mostly community-based projects.

[Dragonbite]

According to this, up to about 25% is done by individuals (shown as "None") or those they could not determine if they were affiliated with with a corporation or who contributed 10 or fewer changes (shown as "Unknown").

Linux Kernel Development (April 2008 )
Who is Sponsoring the Work

The Linux kernel is a resource which is used by a large variety of companies. Many of those companies never participate in the development of the kernel; they are content with the software as it is and do not feel the need to help drive its development in any particular direction. But, as can be seen in Table 4, an increasing number of companies are working toward the improvement of the kernel.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/images/table4-companies.gif

[zekopeko]

Ahh.. but once you will start using UbuntuOne, you cannot, at this time, move to Fedora, Windows or any other non-Ubuntu distribution without loosing access to UbuntuOne. That's is lock-in.

Dropbox is an alternative, like Linux is for Windows.


dropbox is a far greater lock-in then U1. U1 client and more importantly the protocol are FOSS. nobody is stopping you or anybody else to write a replacement for U1 server access. the only thing that could stop you would be Terms of Use of UbuntuOne service. but then again you could also write a FOSS server component analog to the U1 server component.


So basically your opinion on these applications is 3rd party hearsay at best?

YMMV


agreed. watching somebody isn't the same as doing it yourself.


Neither one of us has the numbers for that so it's a piss contest.

I was just thinking of all of the times I hear the Ubuntu is developed by Canonical employees, Fedora developed by Red Hat employees and openSUSE developed by Novell employees plus the number of projects that these companies (not individuals) are listed as participating in the development of open source projects like the kernel and such. Even Java was developed by Sun employees.

And of course, Mono is developed by some Novell employees as well as individuals.

Large part of mono were developed by other companies besides novell. it's the same as with the linux kernel. there are a number of individual contributor but the kernel development is heavily helped by companies providing large pieces of code. why? because they use linux in their operations and want it to do a specific task geared toward their business. that's why linux first conquered the server space.

here is an article from the linux foundation about contributors dated april 2008:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php

[zekopeko]

damn you beat me to the punch dragonbite.

[Dragonbite]

dropbox is a far greater lock-in then U1. U1 client and more importantly the protocol are FOSS. nobody is stopping you or anybody else to write a replacement for U1 server access. the only thing that could stop you would be Terms of Use of UbuntuOne service. but then again you could also write a FOSS server component analog to the U1 server component.

Agreed, if it is FOSS it can be modified to play with others nicely, point taken.


here is an article from the linux foundation about contributors dated april 2008:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php
Yeah, that's where I got the chart and quote from.

[knopper67]

Back in 2006 someone in this thread mentioned it was only a matter of time before non-mono alternatives started popping up.

What a coincidence! I just started developing a non-mono alternative to tomboy! http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/AJ1586019/banana0tq.gif

[ad_267]

Back in 2006 someone in this thread mentioned it was only a matter of time before non-mono alternatives started popping up.

What a coincidence! I just started developing a non-mono alternative to tomboy! http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/AJ1586019/banana0tq.gif

You're a bit late. Have a look at gnote.

[gnomeuser]

1) Ubuntu - Foundation/Community
2) OpenSuse - Company
3) Mint - Community
4) Fedora - Company
5) Debian - Community
6) Mandriva - Company
7) PCLinuxOS - Community
8) Puppy - Community
9) Sabayon - Community
10) CentOS - Community


You wrong on Ubuntu, The Ubuntu Foundation is a trust that largely exists in case Canonical goes under. Canonical with some community participation does the Ubuntu specific development.

You are also wrong for openSUSE which also has a vibrant community to maintain it's packages. It isn't just Novell/SuSE employees, e.g. the contrib repo is run by a lot of volunteers.

You are wrong again with Fedora, by far the majority of the packages in Fedora are maintained exclusively by volunteer community members, community members account for the majority of Fedora spins as well as probably half the new features in any release. From the sense of being a community driven distribution Fedora is probably the single best example we have which also has corporate sponsorship.

A substanial amount of the work you use today on any given Linux desktop has been touched by community members working on Fedora. It is not just about packaging and bugfixing, community members actually drive new features and plentiful bucketloads of code to your desktop.

Please improve your research.

[Sublime Porte]

Gnomeuser,

You validate my point. I wanted to put them as community, because they are the comunity editions of SLED & Red Hat, but I thought I'd just be a little conservative in my estimates. My position here is that community participation is a major contributing factor, probably the lion's share, not the other wway round.

[Dragonbite]

Jo Shields wrote an interesting blog response to Linux Today, which was asking for pro-Mono submissions.
Your request was for “a calm presentation of why Mono is desirable, why it is not a threat, and why it should be included in Ubuntu by default”. I’ll answer these three questions individually, then offer a general comment on your post, as well as the wider “anti-Mono” movement. This message is GPG-signed to ensure it is published unedited.

You can read the rest of the blog post here (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/).


@Gnomeuser : thanks for the insight.

[alternatealias]

Jo Shields wrote an interesting blog response to Linux Today, which was asking for pro-Mono submissions.


You can read the rest of the blog post here (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/).


@Gnomeuser : thanks for the insight.

Wow, great blog post!

[Dragonbite]

Wow, great blog post!
I don't like reading white text on black background.

[cb951303]

I don't like reading white text on black background.

it's not white

[Dragonbite]

it's not white

Ok, "light"?

[zekopeko]

Ok, "light"?

http://planet.ubuntu.com/

scroll down.

[Delever]

Nonsense. Happens.

[k2t0f12d]

127.0.0.1 <ad server here>

[Sef]

Jo Shields, a member of the Debian Mono Group, Debian CLI Applications Team, and Debian CLI Libraries Team and also a Ubuntu MOTU, has written an article in favor of Mono (http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/06/why-mono-is-des.html).

[handy]

Thanks for posting that link Sef, it is the best I've read on Mono.

Jo Shields presents a thorough overview of the Mono situation in an obviously knowledgeable, clear, concise, non-reactive & even handed fashion.

I think that many Linux users need to read his words & understand them.

[directhex]

Thanks for posting that link Sef, it is the best I've read on Mono.

Jo Shields presents a thorough overview of the Mono situation in an obviously knowledgeable, clear, concise, non-reactive & even handed fashion.

I think that many Linux users need to read his words & understand them.

I don't know about even-handed - there's some clear bias in it, especially the last two sections.

[twright]

I think that most of the people who oppose mono just do so because of the relationship with Microsoft and are thus loosing out on good applications and (dare I say it?) a good programing framework.

[UbuKunubi]

AS far as Im concerned I have python and C++, so why yet another language? Whatever reasons others give I see no reason for it.

After I removed mono from my Jaunty system there was a increase in system performance, so I now know I did the right thing.

My pennies worth,
Ubu

[Sublime Porte]

Posting in this thread is probably going to be useless, as any criticism of mono is usually met (by it's devotees) with cries of trolling, but here goes anyway.

As Ubukunubi mentioned above, we've got plenty of other languages already that work just fine. Also it seems the only real benefits that the article could mention were easier coding, that's what it all hinged on. I would submit that vala, having a c# like syntax, as well as a nice object-oriented interface to gtk would fill most of the gaps the article's author claims that mono fills for us. Python works fine for me, and I really don't find it to be as slow as they claim. Sure it's not as fast as c or c++, but now we have vala, we have that speed (vala would be faster than mono, since it actually translates everything back into pure c), in an easier to use language anyway.

[directhex]

AS far as Im concerned I have python and C++, so why yet another language? Whatever reasons others give I see no reason for it.

Are you telling Free Software developers what you give them permission to use?

After I removed mono from my Jaunty system there was a increase in system performance, so I now know I did the right thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

[23meg]

I would submit that vala, having a c# like syntax, as well as a nice object-oriented interface to gtk would fill most of the gaps the article's author claims that mono fills for us.

One downside to that argument is that Vala is not as capable, mature and complete as Mono at this time for many potential use scenarios.

I would suggest people who have a vendetta against Mono for whatever reason (regardless of its merit and validity) to put their efforts into actually providing an equally compelling alternative to it, instead of merely talking against it. Vala could indeed be it, and looks like the closest candidate, but it isn't at this point.

Of course, testing, documenting, improving, using and spreading Vala will be harder work than producing anti-Mono FUD.

[kirsis]

After I removed mono from my Jaunty system there was a increase in system performance, so I now know I did the right thing.


:---)


I can already imagine some people new to Linux perusing some threads and reading this statement.

Not knowing/caring about the whole Mono issue, they don't proceed to read the whole thread, however this quote's pretty easy to remember, even if you aren't informed about the technology (X made Y slow, X = bad).

Then, whenever Mono is brought up, they repeat it to their friends, who are also new to Linux, "Oh, Mono makes your system slow, you better uninstall it". :roll:



Good article, imo. I hope this thread doesn't devolve into people stating their "valid" reason X for hating mono, even though the very same issue was addressed in the article. It happened on reddit.

[Sublime Porte]

I would suggest people who have a vendetta against Mono for whatever reason (regardless of its merit and validity) to put their efforts into actually providing an equally compelling alternative to it, instead of merely talking against it.

That is indeed good advice.

Of course, testing, documenting, improving, using and spreading Vala will be harder work than producing anti-Mono FUD.

Well, those who have reservations about mono generally don't go around starting topics about it everywhere, however they will often respond to thread after thread of heaped praise for mono. So I think that point wasn't quite valid.

My resevrations about mono spring from the fact that Microsoft has clearly threatened to bring Linux down by use of patents, and although it's not entirely clear yet how they could do that with mono, I really do think we should err on the side of caution, and avoid anything that could possibly assist them in carrying out that threat. I don't know how long you've been using Linux, but for some it's been well over a decade, and we don't want to see it go down the gurgler just like that, simply so people can have some extra convenience when writing code. I do understand though that for those who've only adopted Linux in the last coupla years, they probably can't see the dangers of this threat, since for them Linux is something fairly new and novel anyway, and not something they've come to rely heavily upon, perhaps after they've become more attached to it, they'll feel the same level of protectiveness over it.

[saulgoode]

Mono is not a threat because it is not special in any legal regard.

Mono is quite unique amongst Free Software projects in that it relies upon patent licensing from a non-contributor for defense of its implementation of the patented technology. No other Free Software project does this.

Comparisons are often made by Mono advocates between patent issues of projects such as the Linux kernel, WINE, Samba, OpenOffice.org, & Firefox and concerns over the patent issues of Mono. These comparisons invariable leave out the fact that none of these projects rely on patent licensing from third-parties for their implementation of technology which is potentially encumbered by patents. The Mono Project explicitly asserts that Microsoft holds patents on technology incorporated into the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 standards and presents an offer of a patent licensing grant from Microsoft to support that implementing that patented technology is safe from infringement liability.

* Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft. Mono was started 4 years before that unfortunate deal took place. Mono gets no special treatment under that deal. It is not mentioned in the deal (as with other apps). This is important to note.

While the first two sentences are entirely true, the 2006 Microsoft/Novell patent agreement does have an extremely significant impact on the issue of patent concerns over the Mono Project and this impact is indeed important to note.

The Mono Project is frequently touting the level of cooperation exhibited by Microsoft with regard to the Mono and Moonlight projects; Mono developers have often visited the Redmond campus and Miguel de Icaza (the Mono Project leader) even lectured at Microsoft's 2008 Programmers Developer Conference. All things being equal, such cooperation would provide a strong indication that Microsoft holds no opposition to a Free implementation of the .NET technology being produced.

This cooperation would even have legal significance under the doctrine of estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel): in non-technical terms, you can't encourage someone to do something and then turn around sue them for doing it. However, the 2006 Novell/Microsoft patent covenant effectively cancels any defense of estoppel because MS is not endorsing a .NET implementation to be made available to everyone under Free Software licensing terms, but instead is collaborating with a business partner to develop a product that is intended only for that partner's customers. Yes, Novell customers gain further defense against infringement claims, but not Ubuntu customers (or Fedora, or Debian, or Mandriva, ...).

* Mono is covered by the OIN, as with most other major Free apps. Patent attacks against Mono carry the same risk to attackers as attacks against any other OIN entrant. Attacks against Mono would risk patent "world war", which Microsoft cannot win. Such an action would harm their business - and lose them money.
While I will not contest this point, I will state my opinion that the approach to patent security advanced by the OIN is distasteful and counterproductive. The idea that the Free Software community should strive to employ, and thereby substantiate, software patents in an effort to provide protection against them is both hypocritical and misguided. Should the OIN ever litigate a patent lawsuit I will undoubtedly be rooting for the defendant and that the patent be invalidated (just as I currently do with any defendant, including Microsoft).

* Mono implements an international standard - albeit one from a convicted monopolist. If this is a problem, why do people use C, the standard from convicted monopolist AT&T? Mono implements an improved, Free replacement for a proprietary offering. If this is a problem, why do people use GNU (which provided an improved, Free replacement for proprietary UNIX)?
This argument has been rebutted so often and so soundly that it amazes that Mono advocates still insist on presenting it. Being an "international standard" inheres no indemnity against patent claims. Being an ECMA standard only provides assurance that associated patent licensing will be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (with no clear definition of what should be defined "reasonable" or "non-discriminatory").

* Absence of "patent protection" is not the same thing as "patent violation". If I offer to sell somebody a promise not to sue them using any of my patents, their taking me up on my offer is no guarantee that I even have anything valid to sell them - merely that they are willing to buy it. If Jim buys protection from any patents I hold, it does not mean that Jim is infringing on anything specific - nor that if Ted does the same thing, that Ted is violating anything either. If a house insurance policy includes flood protection, it does not mean that your house will be flooded - and not buying flood protection does not mean that you will be flooded either.

The argument presented is accurate, however, it makes the erroneous presumption that litigation is the sole means through which patent issues might be employed to the detriment of a Mono user. If I have a business and am using Ubuntu's Mono stack on some of my systems, it would be neither inconceivable nor unprecedented that a Microsoft sales strategy might be applied to compel me to switch to a SuSE, or even a Microsoft, solution in order to avoid litigation.

* Regardless of whether or not any specific patent licenses over ECMA 334 and 335 cover Mono's implementation of those standards, if indeed such agreements are available (ITWire's curlish "attempt" to secure such an arrangement aside), the fact that statements have been made in public supporting the idea of royalty-free licensing essentially reduces the financial impact of such infringement to zero.

Herein lies the most egregious error in Jo Shield's essay: the idea that monetary compensation is the only economic benefit that a right's holder might expect from his licensing. It is the very foundation of reciprocal licenses such as the GPL that benefits other than direct payment of money are desirable when sharing "intellectual property". It has been recognized by the courts -- most recently in the case of Jacobsen v. Katzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer) -- and yet the Mono Project would have us believe that Microsoft, in offering royalty-free licensing, has sacrificed ALL of its exclusive rights and has forgone any opportunity to accrue any benefits aside from potential monetary gain. This is a grave misrepresentation of the legalities underlying Microsoft's offer of RAND-Z patent licensing.

The reason this is so egregious is because the argument is completely lacking in ethics. If a band offers their latest album as a free download from its website, the fact they are offering it "royalty-free" does not mean that everyone is free to do with it what they will. The band still holds the copyrights and reserves the right to demand that recipients visit the website and download it for themselves; and though the band may not be directly compensated monetarily, courts would readily recognize the band's expectation that the terms and conditions of their licensing be respected. Likewise, courts will readily find that Microsoft has not sacrificed ALL of their patent rights just because of their offer of royalty-free and non-discriminatory licensing.

It is the unethical nature of this argument which singles out Mono as a particular liability to the Free Software community. Ethics weigh heavily in courts' decisions and it is especially true for the field of intellectual property law. Ethics are even written into the code of law itself. Actions which might otherwise be considered legal can be ruled illegal owing to them being performed through unethical means or for unethical purposes. Cases which might otherwise be won can be lost owing to unethical arguments presented in defense.

Consider the case of DeCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes), where hopes of a free implementation of DVD playback were effectively shattered because it was adjudged that the primary purpose of the defendants' actions was to promote violation of copyright laws (because they basically admitted such). If instead the defendants had been more ethical, it is quite possible that they'd have prevailed and watching DVDs on Free Software systems not be so problematic as it currently is.

It is my main concern, this increased potential of a GNU/Linux losing a software patent case owing to an unscrupulous disregard for the licensing offered by Microsoft over their ECMA 334/335 patents. Such a loss would be extremely detrimental to the cause of Free Software just at a time when it seems the courts are on the verge of abrogating software patents altogether.

I have no objection to the existence of the Mono Project nor would I ever suggest that its developers stop working on its development. However, when it comes to distros such as Ubuntu distributing Mono in its default install, this places an undue risk on the entire Free Software community and could serve to negate significant advances that have occurred over the past couple of years in the elimination of software patents.

By all means, Mono developers should continue development and distros should offer Mono as a choice for users to install. But, at least for now, distros should abide by the licensing terms which Microsoft offers or leave it to individual users to decide the applicability of patent laws in their jurisdictions. Perhaps in a year or so there will be a clearer vision of which way the fight against software patents is headed; the U.S. Supreme Court has just this month announced that their fall session will hear the appeal of the Re: Bilski ruling, and the European Patent Office is currently considering arguments on software patents.

Alternately, the Mono Project should explicitly state what the exact terms and conditions are of Microsoft's alleged patent grant. The current lack of any hard documentation of any unrestricted license being granted is entirely unacceptable.

[23meg]

Well, those who have reservations about mono generally don't go around starting topics about it everywhere, however they will often respond to thread after thread of heaped praise for mono. So I think that point wasn't quite valid.

My impression has been rather towards the contrary. Perhaps we've been looking at different places.

And FUD != reservations. I do have some reservations myself, and have found writings from those with reservations in the vein of Shields' post very informative, but I prefer to keep my reservations to myself until I'm reasonably informed on the issue.

I don't know how long you've been using Linux, but for some it's been well over a decade, and we don't want to see it go down the gurgler just like that, simply so people can have some extra convenience when writing code. I do understand though that for those who've only adopted Linux in the last coupla years, they probably can't see the dangers of this threat, since for them Linux is something fairly new and novel anyway, and not something they've come to rely heavily upon, perhaps after they've become more attached to it, they'll feel the same level of protectiveness over it.

I'm part of the decade old crowd, but I've seen people with varying levels of experience on both sides of the fence, as well as right on the fence.

[directhex]

Mono is quite unique amongst Free Software projects in that it relies upon patent licensing from a non-contributor for defense of its implementation of the patented technology. No other Free Software project does this.

Comparisons are often made by Mono advocates between patent issues of projects such as the Linux kernel, WINE, Samba, OpenOffice.org, & Firefox and concerns over the patent issues of Mono. These comparisons invariable leave out the fact that none of these projects rely on patent licensing from third-parties for their implementation of technology which is potentially encumbered by patents. The Mono Project explicitly asserts that Microsoft holds patents on technology incorporated into the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 standards and presents an offer of a patent licensing grant from Microsoft to support that implementing that patented technology is safe from infringement liability.

It doesn't "rely" on anything - it falls back on it at worst. As in "if you care, ask these guys who say they'll hook you up"

You used the key word here yourself - potentially. There are no documented instances of patents infringed by Mono - and nobody in 7 years has stepped forward with an example. The Mono Project explicitly asserts that Microsoft holds patents on their implementation of ECMA334/335 (Microsoft.NET), but makes no claims regarding any potential overlap between specific methods which may (or may not) be patented, and the Mono (or other non-Microsoft) implementations.

Let's look to another example you name - OpenOffice.org. OOo implements, courtesy of Sun, importers for ECMA376 (OOXML). ECMA376 has an identical (almost to the letter) offer for patent licensing covering implementations, up on the ECMA website (http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma%20PATENT/ECMA-376%20Edition%202%20Microsoft%20Patent%20Declarati on.pdf). Will you make the same claims against OOo as against Mono, given they both implement Microsoft-sourced ECMA standards with identical patent statements?

While the first two sentences are entirely true, the 2006 Microsoft/Novell patent agreement does have an extremely significant impact on the issue of patent concerns over the Mono Project and this impact is indeed important to note.

The Mono Project is frequently touting the level of cooperation exhibited by Microsoft with regard to the Mono and Moonlight projects; Mono developers have often visited the Redmond campus and Miguel de Icaza (the Mono Project leader) even lectured at Microsoft's 2008 Programmers Developer Conference. All things being equal, such cooperation would provide a strong indication that Microsoft holds no opposition to a Free implementation of the .NET technology being produced.

This cooperation would even have legal significance under the doctrine of estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel): in non-technical terms, you can't encourage someone to do something and then turn around sue them for doing it. However, the 2006 Novell/Microsoft patent covenant effectively cancels any defense of estoppel because MS is not endorsing a .NET implementation to be made available to everyone under Free Software licensing terms, but instead is collaborating with a business partner to develop a product that is intended only for that partner's customers. Yes, Novell customers gain further defense against infringement claims, but not Ubuntu customers (or Fedora, or Debian, or Mandriva, ...).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms973826.aspx

2001 would be prior to the Novell arrangement, and restore the question of estoppel, yes?

While I will not contest this point, I will state my opinion that the approach to patent security advanced by the OIN is distasteful and counterproductive. The idea that the Free Software community should strive to employ, and thereby substantiate, software patents in an effort to provide protection against them is both hypocritical and misguided. Should the OIN ever litigate a patent lawsuit I will undoubtedly be rooting for the defendant and that the patent be invalidated (just as I currently do with any defendant, including Microsoft).

I agree - but my point is that Mono is covered by the same "patent good guys" as, say, Apache or Amarok (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_linuxdefpop.html).

This argument has been rebutted so often and so soundly that it amazes that Mono advocates still insist on presenting it. Being an "international standard" inheres no indemnity against patent claims. Being an ECMA standard only provides assurance that associated patent licensing will be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (with no clear definition of what should be defined "reasonable" or "non-discriminatory").

It does, however, help to establish estoppel.

The argument presented is accurate, however, it makes the erroneous presumption that litigation is the sole means through which patent issues might be employed to the detriment of a Mono user. If I have a business and am using Ubuntu's Mono stack on some of my systems, it would be neither inconceivable nor unprecedented that a Microsoft sales strategy might be applied to compel me to switch to a SuSE, or even a Microsoft, solution in order to avoid litigation.

If they explicitly cited a particular project as a problem (rather than the general statements about "Linux" issued from dimwit managers to equally dimwit salespeople), then that would be news. But bear in mind that claims are not the same thing as truth - see SCO for a well-documented example.

Herein lies the most egregious error in Jo Shield's essay: the idea that monetary compensation is the only economic benefit that a right's holder might expect from his licensing. It is the very foundation of reciprocal licenses such as the GPL that benefits other than direct payment of money are desirable when sharing "intellectual property". It has been recognized by the courts -- most recently in the case of Jacobsen v. Katzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer) -- and yet the Mono Project would have us believe that Microsoft, in offering royalty-free licensing, has sacrificed ALL of its exclusive rights and has forgone any opportunity to accrue any benefits aside from potential monetary gain. This is a grave misrepresentation of the legalities underlying Microsoft's offer of RAND-Z patent licensing.

The reason this is so egregious is because the argument is completely lacking in ethics. If a band offers their latest album as a free download from its website, the fact they are offering it "royalty-free" does not mean that everyone is free to do with it what they will. The band still holds the copyrights and reserves the right to demand that recipients visit the website and download it for themselves; and though the band may not be directly compensated monetarily, courts would readily recognize the band's expectation that the terms and conditions of their licensing be respected. Likewise, courts will readily find that Microsoft has not sacrificed ALL of their patent rights just because of their offer of royalty-free and non-discriminatory licensing.

It is the unethical nature of this argument which singles out Mono as a particular liability to the Free Software community. Ethics weigh heavily in courts' decisions and it is especially true for the field of intellectual property law. Ethics are even written into the code of law itself. Actions which might otherwise be considered legal can be ruled illegal owing to them being performed through unethical means or for unethical purposes. Cases which might otherwise be won can be lost owing to unethical arguments presented in defense.

Consider the case of DeCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes), where hopes of a free implementation of DVD playback were effectively shattered because it was adjudged that the primary purpose of the defendants' actions was to promote violation of copyright laws (because they basically admitted such). If instead the defendants had been more ethical, it is quite possible that they'd have prevailed and watching DVDs on Free Software systems not be so problematic as it currently is.

It is my main concern, this increased potential of a GNU/Linux losing a software patent case owing to an unscrupulous disregard for the licensing offered by Microsoft over their ECMA 334/335 patents. Such a loss would be extremely detrimental to the cause of Free Software just at a time when it seems the courts are on the verge of abrogating software patents altogether.

I have no objection to the existence of the Mono Project nor would I ever suggest that its developers stop working on its development. However, when it comes to distros such as Ubuntu distributing Mono in its default install, this places an undue risk on the entire Free Software community and could serve to negate significant advances that have occurred over the past couple of years in the elimination of software patents.

By all means, Mono developers should continue development and distros should offer Mono as a choice for users to install. But, at least for now, distros should abide by the licensing terms which Microsoft offers or leave it to individual users to decide the applicability of patent laws in their jurisdictions. Perhaps in a year or so there will be a clearer vision of which way the fight against software patents is headed; the U.S. Supreme Court has just this month announced that their fall session will hear the appeal of the Re: Bilski ruling, and the European Patent Office is currently considering arguments on software patents.

Alternately, the Mono Project should explicitly state what the exact terms and conditions are of Microsoft's alleged patent grant. The current lack of any hard documentation of any unrestricted license being granted is entirely unacceptable.

So are you making the same calls to see the signed patent agreements for ECMA376 implementations such as OOo? If not, why not? Are OOo developers unethical for writing that code in the absence of such a written agreement?

[Greg]

AS far as Im concerned I have python and C++, so why yet another language? Whatever reasons others give I see no reason for it.

After I removed mono from my Jaunty system there was a increase in system performance, so I now know I did the right thing.

My pennies worth,
Ubu

We have LISP for a high level language and C and Assembly for low level stuff, what do we need C++ and Python for?

[handy]

Apparently Mark Shuttleworth thinks Mono is a good thing.

I would think that he (Mark) would know if there are existing &/or potential legal problems with Mono, before making such a statement.

If you missed it, it is referenced in the linked to article by Jo Shields.

[Sublime Porte]

I would think that he (Mark) would know if there are existing &/or potential legal problems with Mono, before making such a statement.

With all due respect to Shuttleworth, Linux and the Free Software Movement in general does not rest on the back of one individual and his opinion, not even Stallman or Torvalds, so that was a pretty pointless statement. Likewise no one man is capable of knowing all the intricacies of software patent laws and how they will playout in the future. Unless I'm mistaken and Shuttleworth is actually a clarivoyant and a patent law expert all rolled into one?

[handy]

It really is a bit sad & also somewhat amusing how snitchy people get on this subject.

They obviously don't have enough to worry about in reality.

Mono will do its thing & become history like everything else.

If it lives or dies, or transmogrifies, I couldn't care less. :D

[directhex]

With all due respect to Shuttleworth, Linux and the Free Software Movement in general does not rest on the back of one individual and his opinion, not even Stallman or Torvalds, so that was a pretty pointless statement. Likewise no one man is capable of knowing all the intricacies of software patent laws and how they will playout in the future. Unless I'm mistaken and Shuttleworth is actually a clarivoyant and a patent law expert all rolled into one?

I think the point is "if Microsoft go postal, who will they sue - Sublime Porte for running something, or the billionaire who's been distributing it?"

[Methuselah]

No mo Mono!

Actually, I'm not that concerned about it as long as it remains easy to remove.

[directhex]

No mo Mono!

Actually, I'm not that concerned about it as long as it remains easy to remove.

The removal process for Karmic will be different. There will be only one package - mono-runtime - at the root of the dependency tree.

[lykwydchykyn]

I guess I'd qualify as on the fence. I'm not terribly worried about using mono-based software (I use it at work with some in-house stuff), but as someone who occasionally wears a programming hat I've shied away from learning any of the mono/.NET related languages because of the controversy.

I think the most unfortunate part of Jo's essay is how much of it is devoted to spurious ad-hominem against the so-called "anti-mono" crowd. I don't think there's a movement, cause, or political/social/religious ideology out there that doesn't contain at least some small-but-vocal contingent of slavering moronic cretins who can do no better than parrot superstitious dogma with their fingers in their ears. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the movement/cause/ideology itself. Bringing it up was pure blather.

The crux of the controversy is what saulgoode and directhex are here debating, and on that issue jo's arguments were, IMHO, poorly argued.

[zekopeko]

Well, those who have reservations about mono generally don't go around starting topics about it everywhere, however they will often respond to thread after thread of heaped praise for mono. So I think that point wasn't quite valid.

Whoaaa i love sci-fi!!! I see this is the one with the alternate inverted universe,no? :popcorn:


My resevrations about mono spring from the fact that Microsoft has clearly threatened to bring Linux down by use of patents, and although it's not entirely clear yet how they could do that with mono, I really do think we should err on the side of caution, and avoid anything that could possibly assist them in carrying out that threat.

You are absolutely right! Therefor i suggest, nay demand that the Linux kernel be removed!!! it haz Microsoft patents!!! Microsoft said so!!! We MUST err on the side of caution, and avoid anything that could possibly assist them in carrying out that threat. </do-i-really-need-to-add-a-sarcasm-tag-?>

[zekopeko]

I think the most unfortunate part of Jo's essay is how much of it is devoted to spurious ad-hominem against the so-called "anti-mono" crowd. I don't think there's a movement, cause, or political/social/religious ideology out there that doesn't contain at least some small-but-vocal contingent of slavering moronic cretins who can do no better than parrot superstitious dogma with their fingers in their ears. But that doesn't automatically invalidate the movement/cause/ideology itself. Bringing it up was pure blather.

from a casual observation in mono threads and beyond i find it fascinating how easy it is to find an ignorant,self-righteous anti-mono crowdie(my singular of crowd. /me feels lingually mischievous), and on the other hand, how easy it is to find a intelligent,facts-supported,far-more-polite,far-more-helpful proponent of mono.

[lykwydchykyn]

from a casual observation in mono threads and beyond i find it fascinating how easy it is to find an ignorant,self-righteous anti-mono crowdie(my singular of crowd. /me feels lingually mischievous), and on the other hand, how easy it is to find a intelligent,facts-supported,far-more-polite,far-more-helpful proponent of mono.

You say so, but I am sure someone with a different view would say otherwise. We tend to notice idiots who disagree with us more than we notice idiots who agree with us.

And in any case, it does not matter at all because it does not invalidate the original ideology. Ideas are not right or wrong on the basis of how many eloquent, informed people believe in them.

[billgoldberg]

AS far as Im concerned I have python and C++, so why yet another language? Whatever reasons others give I see no reason for it.



At least pretend to have read the article before posting.

The article says that Mono is up to 100 times faster than python in some benchmarks.

That alone makes it worth using instead of python.

[bakedbeans4life]

If this has passed me by then I apologise.

Can Microsoft sue Mono under any circumstances?

The answer should be a simple yes or no.

I have yet to hear an official answer from Microsoft or the Mono developers on this issue.

No hyperbole, yes or no?

[zekopeko]

If this has passed me by then I apologise.

Can Microsoft sue Mono under any circumstances?

The answer should be a simple yes or no.

I have yet to hear an official answer from Microsoft or the Mono developers on this issue.

No hyperbole, yes or no?

let's see... oh i know what you are trying to do! you are expecting a simple answer so that you can point to it and say "Look, I told you so". I will answer it if you will answer mine with a simple yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?"

[zekopeko]

You say so, but I am sure someone with a different view would say otherwise. We tend to notice idiots who disagree with us more than we notice idiots who agree with us.

And in any case, it does not matter at all because it does not invalidate the original ideology. Ideas are not right or wrong on the basis of how many eloquent, informed people believe in them.

But having eloquent and informed people sure helps ones arguments, does it not? Or do you prefer ignorant , ill-informed debates?
The essence of FLOSS is meritocracy with a dash of democracy. Ideas should be valued by merit not by angry peasants with pitchforks and torches.
Having F-spot and Tomboy in Ubuntu by default is a perfect example of meritocracy in action.