Old mono rants

[lykwydchykyn]

If this has passed me by then I apologise.

Can Microsoft sue Mono under any circumstances?


Microsoft can sue anyone it likes any time for any reason. The question is whether it can win and what the fallout would be. And that's more or less the substance of the debate, as I understand it.

[bakedbeans4life]

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?"

Personal insults now, of a sort.

A concise and succinct answer to the question posed would have sufficed.

Is it not forthcoming?

[lykwydchykyn]

But having eloquent and informed people sure helps ones arguments, does it not?


Only weakly and circumstantially. But since there is no proof (only blatantly biased "observations") that the "anti-mono" crowd has significantly more idiots than the "pro-mono" crowd, why does it matter?


Or do you prefer ignorant , ill-informed debates?

That should be obvious, considering my whole initial point was to criticize the amount of unfounded ad hominem assertions in Jo's article.

Do you think that ad-hominem remarks constitute intelligent, informed debate?


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.

I concur, but that cuts both ways in this case. Simply declaring your opponent an angry mob of non-contributors doesn't make the valid bits of their argument go away.


Having F-spot and Tomboy in Ubuntu by default is a perfect example of meritocracy in action.

I have not used either (not because they are mono, but because I'm using Kubuntu and never took notice of those apps), so I couldn't say. Like I said, I'm not worried about using mono apps, I'm just not sure that I would choose to work with it because of the controversy. I am not arguing that mono is either good or bad, just that this particular essay brought very little intelligence to the debate.

[Regenweald]

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).

It was a valiant attempt Sef, but even this thread is rapidly going downhill.
Even though i understand the reservations of the anti-mono crowd, my hypothetical: mono snowballs in development popularity and nearly the entire desktop is mono based, Microsoft then swoops in with litigation to cripple the desktop. A vala porting sprint ensues.

I still have faith in the development community not to take steps that could ultimately lead to crippling the userland environment. as for Vala, I hope it matures rapidly and proves itself a viable FOSS development platform.

With the python vs topic, Python seems to be an amazing development platform but i have C++ programs in wine(utorrent) that run circles around their python counterparts(deluge) interms of memory usage. I'm not a dev and i know that there are hundreds if not thousands of reasons that python is THE choice, but it is not the fastest available.

In the meanwhile, I love docky, and look forward to the c++ implementation of compiz.

[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 (and those of his or her ilk) seem to take exception to this question, is it that outlandish?

YES OR NO?

[Closed_Port]

zekopeko (and those of his or her ilk) seem to take exception to this question, is it that outlandish?

YES OR NO?

Like with any other piece of software MS can sue about it. So the question of weather MS can sue about it or not doesn't really make much sense.

I think the issue at hand is if the likelyhood of MS suing about Mono and succeeding is bigger than with other free software.

[chips24]

what about smoking frogs. yeah. in a pipe.
dried frog guts..


or making ink from beetle shells.

[zekopeko]

I think the issue at hand is if the likelyhood of MS suing about Mono and succeeding is bigger than with other free software.

not true. i don't know of any patents that have been identified as being implemented in mono.
what i do know is that MS has patent for XPCOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPCOM). Two of the prominent users in FLOSS are Firefox (and derivatives) and OO.org.
So far more likelier scenario is FF and OO.org crashing and burning then mono.

[zekopeko]

zekopeko (and those of his or her ilk) seem to take exception to this question, is it that outlandish?

Certainly it's outlandish since i don't want to post something that can be used as cheap FUD ammo. Read Jo Shields post. The answer is provided.

And you took exception to my question: "Do you still beat your wife/husband?". YES OR NO?

[directhex]

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?"

C'mon, dude, that's pretty low. Take the higher ground. Me, I'm gleefully hoping that people have a read of http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html rather than my own post. And not just because I've more than exceeded my monthly webhost bandwidth limit.

[Closed_Port]

no true.

Just to clear this up. I said or meant to say that it is the relevant question that should be discussed. I did not say that it actually was the case that mono is more vulnerable than other software to a MS patent threat. I honestly don't know.

[Closed_Port]

http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html rather than my own post. And not just because I've more than exceeded my monthly webhost bandwidth limit.
Wow, thanks for posting this. I hadn't read it and it is disturbing, to say the least.

[zekopeko]

Only weakly and circumstantially. But since there is no proof (only blatantly biased "observations") that the "anti-mono" crowd has significantly more idiots than the "pro-mono" crowd, why does it matter?

I don't know why this didn't pop in my head earlier. In the civilized world the burden of proof is on the accusers. The best "proof" the anti-mono has is weak and circumstantial.


That should be obvious, considering my whole initial point was to criticize the amount of unfounded ad hominem assertions in Jo's article.

Ad hominem means you are attacking the person not his argument. You probably read the wrong blog post since the WHOLE post Jo posted is about dismantling their "solid proof". And the part of your alleged ad hominem attack against the anti-mono crowd is unfounded since he simply stated that some people posting on boycottnovell appear like raving lunatic. And i would agree. but then zealots are sometimes so cute :)


Do you think that ad-hominem remarks constitute intelligent, informed debate?

No ad hominem attacks were made.


I concur, but that cuts both ways in this case. Simply declaring your opponent an angry mob of non-contributors doesn't make the valid bits of their argument go away.

It just makes them irrelevant. What meritorious thing did they bring to the table? And their "arguments" have been either beaten, or cast in the abyss of doubt. When people come to the ubuntu-devel-discuss list and demand mono removed without providing a migration path and new non-mono apps to replace the one's that would be lost, and get shoot down by people that provide their time to Ubuntu development, shows how far this people are from the essence of FLOSS. And don't try to say that this is only a minority of anti-mono crowd. For every quasi-intelligent anti-mono post there is a sea of ill-informed (usually by the same post they are commenting) comments.


I have not used either (not because they are mono, but because I'm using Kubuntu and never took notice of those apps), so I couldn't say. Like I said, I'm not worried about using mono apps, I'm just not sure that I would choose to work with it because of the controversy. I am not arguing that mono is either good or bad, just that this particular essay brought very little intelligence to the debate.

Try re-reading the essay. You obviously missed huge part's of it. Try to read it without your mono skepticism and with understanding that software patents can attack any software. Be it mono or something else.

[zekopeko]

C'mon, dude, that's pretty low. Take the higher ground. Me, I'm gleefully hoping that people have a read of http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html rather than my own post. And not just because I've more than exceeded my monthly webhost bandwidth limit.

Agreed. I overstepped civil discourse. My apologies. Will try to behave ;)

And that article is disturbing.

[Sublime Porte]

With the python vs topic, Python seems to be an amazing development platform but i have C++ programs in wine(utorrent) that run circles around their python counterparts(deluge) interms of memory usage.

I must say it's quite a while since I've used utorrent, but when I did, it was a rather barebones client. Deluge is pretty full featured, so the comparison is just ridiculous.

[zekopeko]

I must say it's quite a while since I've used utorrent, but when I did, it was a rather barebones client. Deluge is pretty full featured, so the comparison is just ridiculous.

utorrent is probably the best full featured client. it has an extremely small footprint, rss support, custom labels and everything you might expect from a torrent client.

[Regenweald]

I must say it's quite a while since I've used utorrent, but when I did, it was a rather barebones client. Deluge is pretty full featured, so the comparison is just ridiculous.

Not picking a fight here, but when i started using deluge over transmission last year, certain standard features that i came to take for granted in utorrent were missing in deluge. Only this year has deluge finally caught up, and in doing so has come to resemble utorrent more and more. I consider them equally feature full. I use them both and in both windows and wine utorrent is a faster lighter client. I consider speed relative though, everyone's router/network is different.

[handy]

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.


One way of succinctly describing the problem in the Mono (amongst so many others) debate, is that some people's minds are fundamentally convergent & others are divergent.

Personally I prefer divergent, as it has a LOT more freedom & welcomes new ideas/experiences. It is also NOT prone to telling other people what they should & shouldn't do/think/believe. :)

[Sublime Porte]

Only this year has deluge finally caught up, and in doing so has come to resemble utorrent more and more. I consider them equally feature full.

Deluge had a pretty major rewrite recently. It has plenty of features utorrent does not. Daemon mode, with the ability to connect remotely is one of the most notable features that came about in the new rewrite. utorrent has nothing of the kind. utorrent, from my understanding specialises in being lean and lite, not featureful.

I consider speed relative though, everyone's router/network is different.

I think we were talking about the speed of the app itself, not it's networking speed. As this was relating back to whether python is suitable for writing apps, which I certainly think it is. Sure there's apps which you want to be lite and fast, but there's others in which it's not an issue.

[-grubby]

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.

Because other people prefer developing in different languages than you?

I was personally thinking about learning C#, after I read it had a garbage collector /and/ was quite a bit faster than Python.

[handy]

Because other people prefer developing in different languages than you?

I was personally thinking about learning C#, after I read it had a garbage collector /and/ was quite a bit faster than Python.

No way buddy, you are not allowed to make free choices around here, if your not careful I'll report you!

[Joe_Bishop]

Tomboy is really badly integrated with the gnome desktop. Since gnote looks almost exacty the same, takes less memory and faster in general, is it good idea to replace tomboy with gnote?

[-grubby]

no way buddy, you are not allowed to make free choices around here, if your not careful i'll report you!

I didn't mean it! I'll submit! I'll submit!

[gnomeuser]

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.

Benchmarking is tricky at best. Being 100 times faster at some operation in a benchmark doesn't automatically translate into being 100 times faster in any case the user will experience in the real world. Benchmarks should be taken in context.

Generally though, Mono performs really well and each release of Mono has the added advantage of not regressing performance (as a whole, individual operations might regress but as a rule Mono only becomes faster as releases progress). This means your average Mono based program will take advantage of these optimizations without even a recompile or an update. Update Mono and your whole suite of applications perform better.

There are also interesting enhancements that have specialized applications where performance will increase radically such as mono.simd. A project the Mono project have expressed an interest in polishing up and taking to ECMA so that even the Microsoft reference implementation of .NET will get the benefits.

[zekopeko]

Deluge had a pretty major rewrite recently. It has plenty of features utorrent does not. Daemon mode, with the ability to connect remotely is one of the most notable features that came about in the new rewrite. utorrent has nothing of the kind. utorrent, from my understanding specialises in being lean and lite, not featureful.

not true. utorrent has web interface (ie. daemon mode) and you also have uRemote: http://uremote.blogspot.com/

[gnomeuser]

not true. utorrent has web interface (ie. daemon mode) and you also have uRemote: http://uremote.blogspot.com/

Incidently the utorrent WebUI has been ported to have a MonoTorrent backend (http://monotorrent.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-got-some-amazing-news-just-few.html).

[Sublime Porte]

utorrent has web interface (ie. daemon mode)

Web interface is _not_ daemon mode, nor anything remotely (pun intended) like it.

Can I run utorrent on a headleass server with no gui? I doubt it.

[Gourgi]

Tomboy is really badly integrated with the gnome desktop. Since gnote looks almost exacty the same, takes less memory and faster in general, is it good idea to replace tomboy with gnote?

i don't really care about the switch but what you mean "badly integrated" ?
what are the pros of gnote?

Also tomboy presented a cool sync feature recently http://automorphic.blogspot.com/2009/05/tomboy-0151-release-brings-new-online.html with Snowy.

[tgpraveen]

well ubuntu plans to not use that online sync feature but rather integrate with ubuntu one. so we can do with gnote also.

but currently tomboy is ahead in terms of features maybe in the future.

also the thing to be considered is that we seem to be a very pro mono distro and recently we moved to banshee so i doubt we will replace tomboy.

though maybe if every one else does change, then tomboy devel ceases then only is there a chance of replacing.

[super.rad]

Tomboy is really badly integrated with the gnome desktop. Since gnote looks almost exacty the same
If it looks almost exactly the same then wouldn't it be just as badly integrated?
Also does gnote have the same amount of features that tomboy does? Last time I had a look at gnote it had nowhere near as many.
Theres no point in replacing a program with one that has less features

[tgpraveen]

well ubuntu plans to not use that online sync feature but rather integrate with ubuntu one. so we can do with gnote also.

but currently tomboy is ahead in terms of features maybe in the future.

also the thing to be considered is that we seem to be a very pro mono distro and recently we moved to banshee so i doubt we will replace tomboy.

though maybe if every one else does change, then tomboy devel ceases then only is there a chance of replacing.

[ghindo]

Gnote will always, _always_ be behind Tomboy, since Gnote is merely a port of Tomboy, not really an original project.

[tgpraveen]

ohg that is not true if many devs feel that they want to deveol gnote then it will get enw features and have a development path of its own.
it does nott depen on tomboy it only used a port of it as a foundation base.
from here we can go anywhere.

[directhex]

Quoting from my own blog:

IF Gnote can reach feature parity with Tomboy, and IF it remains smaller on disk and in RAM with those features it currently lacks, and IF it shows a clean bill of health for security and stability over a testing period longer than its one month on this Earth, and IF the desktop team are comfortable switching from an app with an upstream team to a one-man show, and IF the desktop team are comfortable going from an app which innovates to an app which emulates, then I think it’s pretty clear which app makes more sense on the default install CDs.

[geojorg]

+1 Nothing else to add.

[DeadSuperHero]

I just read this here (http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html).

We've seen Mark [Fink] before, more than a year ago, similarly stirring up the GNOME desktop-devel list. At that point, he was planning to write "a replacement for Tomboy" because "because Tomboy is poisoning GNOME distributions like Red Hat and Ubuntu with it's Microsoft patented MONO dependency crap". In support of his position, he pointed to articles on Roy Schestowitz's site, boycottnovell.com. Roy seems to have a similar dislike for Mono, although I have to say he's a lot more careful in his phrasing of things.

It was a pretty pointless message, again referencing boycottnovell.com, and it got the expected reaction. Mark continued to escalate things even further, claiming that "the MONO camp has infiltrated canonical", and that people were "slandering roy schestowitz", Mark roundlt abused Miguel de Icaza, accusing him of "worship[ing] M$", of only starting GNOME because "because he couldn't get hired by M$" and of "splitting the Linux community", before going on to suggest that someone who expressed rational disagreement with this nonsense was a "typical M$ appologist [sic]", that "only stupid people who can't think for themselves fawn over MONO and follow it like a religion", that the forum moderators were "novell employees (or people who drink they're [sic] koolaid)", and so on.

As I noted, Mark consistently points back to boycottnovell.com, trumpeting the cause espoused there by Roy Schestowitz, and in fact demanding at one point that Roy be made a moderator of ubuntu-devel to ensure "fairness". Mark gives every impression of being closely associated with Roy's cause and site.

With all this in mind, it seems that Roy is trying to distort and warp the Ubuntu community to follow his own personal agenda.

[The Toxic Mite]

I just read this here (http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html).

<snip />

With all this in mind, it seems that Roy is trying to distort and warp the Ubuntu community to follow his own personal agenda.

Anti-Microsoft propaganda.

I just wish they would shut the hell up! :|

[Icehuck]

These people are pathetic, but hey we already knew that.

[SuperSonic4]

I'm using Arch and KDE but he's just being an idiot again. Novell have made good contributions affecting all distros and continue to do so.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

I used to visit a couple of sites at least once a day just to have an idea about the pile of crap that is being promoted online, just for some fun. But of late, boycott novell is the only place that puts out crap quite consistently, with every post actually. Looks like they are a bunch of overgrown men with the intellect of a five year old, and i feel sorry for all the five year olds.

[directhex]

I love how BN are spinning the official Technical Board statement that they don't see Mono as a risk factor (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028347.html) as the 100% exact opposite

[DeadSuperHero]

A really insightful comment is on their latest article by some guy named Dave.

Yes, they looked at it and found it is fine by them, and OSI, and FSF and RMS and GPL and Torvalds.
“In short, at the moment, Mono is very well-maintained in Ubuntu and there appears to be no significant cause for concern over its IP situation”
“Mono advances Microsoft (Windows, Visual Studio, etc.) at Ubuntu’s expense. Thus, it’s detrimental to everyone”
we’ll providing more tools and methods and more ability for the many many Windows only developers to easily provide their apps for Linux is good for linux and good for the computing, and development environments in general.
If we were really concerned about patent liability, we would not use C at all, or anything else, after all, Linux (the same license as mono) grew from the proprietary world, as did GCC, emacs, Vim and so on.
IMHO, if its good enough for the GPL, OSI, FSF, RMS and “those in the know”. then its ok with me.
Ater all is not RMS the spiritual leader of the FOSS movement who is very against proprietary systems, (even though he himself needed proprietary systems for his GCC development, ((kept quite))..
Ofcourse, the highly technically literate FOSS users would find it trivial to remove it, yet for some reason its easier to defy RMS, FSF, GPL and so on to persue their own adjender..
With total disregard to what are the long term implications that may affect the very viability of the FOSS movement.
Especially, IF splinter groups continue to break and devalue the GPL, the very same license that binds the kernel and the FOSS community.


Schestowitz then tries to just write off Dave's opinion by labeling him as a Microsoft shill:

For the record, “Dave” is a nymshift of “Darryl”, who is considered a Microsoft shill and got banned in Linux sites.

[Icehuck]

The sad thing is most of the users here don't care what a few people are trying to do to their community.

[DeadSuperHero]

The sad thing is most of the users here don't care what a few people are trying to do to their community.

The truly horrifying aspect of it is just how far their hand goes into things like this.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Because, of course, I don't know about 6 different Daves in my little corner of the world alone...

[ddrichardson]

The sad thing is most of the users here don't care what a few people are trying to do to their community.
This issue isn't fully understood by the majority of Ubuntu's users but that's hardly surprising given we're talking about a development platform and we've spent vast amounts of time and energy encapsulating new users from the underlying complexity.

[bekind2thenoob]

I'm a Dave :D

[ddrichardson]

I'm a Dave :D
I can see this becoming the Linux community's version of "I'm Spartacus"

[lykwydchykyn]

The sad thing is most of the users here don't care what a few people are trying to do to their community.
To be fair, most users have no idea about this stuff. And those that try to approach the topic with an open mind to both sides encounter a morass of he said/she said arguments, accusations of nymshifting, shilling, astroturfing, and conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories. And that comes from BOTH SIDES.

Personally I'm not worried about Ubuntu shipping mono or mono applications. I think FOSS and Linux are big enough to survive any real or imagined patent threats from one out of a dozen programming frameworks.

[directhex]

I'm a Dave :D

http://www.billythefish.com/mediac/400_0/media/Papa~Lazarou.jpg ?

[ronacc]

there is one overriding reason for some of us to prefer gnote , it is a port to c++ away from mono .

[zekopeko]

there is one overriding reason for some of us to prefer gnote , it is a port to c++ away from mono .

and then there are most users that want something that "Just Works" (TM). Not to mention that Gnote is always lagging behind in implementation or is breaking compatibility.

[ghindo]

there is one overriding reason for some of us to prefer gnote , it is a port to c++ away from mono .Most users presumably don't care what language a program is written in, only whether or not the program works well and the program has all the features the user wants. Tomboy provides all of that; Gnote is left playing second fiddle. If you want to use Gnote instead of Tomboy that of course is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean it's the best choice for the majority of users.

[gnomeuser]

Gnote brings nothing to the table currently of any technical nature, a suggestion to let it replace Tomboy is a suggestion to let inferior software prevail.

[ronacc]

by all means use which ever you think best suits your needs/wants . I was merely stating a personal preference .

[Staz]

Tomboy is really badly integrated with the gnome desktop.

I fail to understand you reasoning : Tomboy is really badly integrated in GNOME, so least replace it with a copy of it?

I also fail to understand how it's badly integrated since it was made for the GNOME desktop

Since gnote looks almost exacty the same, takes less memory and faster in general, is it good idea to replace tomboy with gnote?
Gnote doesn't have all the features of Tomboy, the dev base and the momentum

[Staz]

also the thing to be considered is that we seem to be a very pro mono distro and recently we moved to banshee so i doubt we will replace tomboy.
It's not about being pro mono or not it's about bringing the best free software to the user if they use mono or not it doesn't matter

[DPic]

It's not about being pro mono or not it's about bringing the best free software to the user if they use mono or not it doesn't matter

Maybe for you, but a lot of us do care about mono. I'm in full support of using Gnote instead.

Fedora is concerned: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html

and Microsoft could pull a Rambus: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/05/14/ftc_drops_rambus_antitrust_case/

[RAOF]

Maybe for you, but a lot of us do care about mono. I'm in full support of using Gnote instead.
...

And you're still perfectly welcome to remove Tomboy, F-Spot, and Banshee.

[Staz]

Maybe for you, but a lot of us do care about mono. I'm in full support of using Gnote instead.

Fedora is concerned: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html

and Microsoft could pull a Rambus: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/05/14/ftc_drops_rambus_antitrust_case/

I think you misunderstood my post. I was just stating the fact that Ubuntu doesn't push a mono application especially because they are pro mono but because in a particular case an application A is better (in a certain context) than application B, which technologies theses application use being irrelevant in the comparison.

But like ROAR says theses are just default and you can remove them if you don't like them.

Lets not turn this thread in a mono trolling thread please.

[zekopeko]

Lets not turn this thread in a mono trolling thread please.

but,but... it's so easy!!! /s

[ronacc]

But like ROAR says theses are just default and you can remove them if you don't like them.

Lets not turn this thread in a mono trolling thread please.

I do , and please realise that it is not trolling when some of us express honestly felt concerns about mono , held for what we believe to be good reasons .

[Staz]

I do , and please realise that it is not trolling when some of us express honestly felt concerns about mono , held for what we believe to be good reasons .

I wasn't calling anyone a troll but saying that continuing on this path may lead to trolling.

Ubuntu has already stated whether it's fine or not to include mono application in it and we should judge proposals by theses criterias.

You may not agree with them but this topic is not the right place to discuss this.

[Vadi]

+1! Mostly does the same stuff, but faster (as many people say) and uses less resources. I've switched full-time, and miss nothing.

[starcannon]

I just read this here (http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html).







With all this in mind, it seems that Roy is trying to distort and warp the Ubuntu community to follow his own personal agenda.

After all the Sir Sane/Mr. Psychopath linsux.org posts here and on other sites, I'm really not sure whether to take this seriously, or whether its just a fork of your fsdaily and boycottnovell raid that is currently under way. Perhaps you can clarify before I spend any time researching your accusation?

[SKLP]

Oh noes! Yet another mono thread...

First, I do not understand what you mean by "badly integrated". Both are gtk apps...

Secondly, Gnote should only replace Tomboy *IF* it becomes MORE featurefull, more stable, and so on.

That said, I seriously do *NOT* believe that writing a note app in C or C++ is a good idea in any way. If the anti-mono crowd wanted to make a note app then maybe they should have used their *beloved* Vala ( Which btw is very much *inspired* by the company you guys seem to hate namely Microsoft), or simply Python or Java(with java-gnome). I would have chosen Python or Java, but rather C# of course ;-) Like I said though, I'm open to moving to Gnote anyways if it was clearly superior overall.

[Screwdriver0815]

can someone explain all this to me?

I have to admit, I tried to read all this boycott novell stuff but I couldn't because

1. I did not understand what they want

2. it sounded like FUD to me

So what I understood is that Novell has signed this interoperation-deal with Microsoft and therefore they have also some shares (or what ever) in this Silverlight, which is a Microsoft-Flash? Is it like that?
And now, there is a programming language Mono, which is created by Microsoft and Novell uses it?
And Tomboy and Banshee are developed in Mono... this is the reason why these Boycott Novell guys say that Linux will be poisoned?

So, what is the issue and what makes all this dangerous? Maybe all this is obvious but I do not understand all this. Thats why: could someone explain?

Thanks!

[gnomeuser]

Fedora is concerned: http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/06/fedora-is-concerned-about-mono.html

Categorically no.. Fedora as a project is not concerned about Mono patents. It is treated as a second class citizen yes but the stance on the legality is that Mono is covered by the OIN and if there was _any_ cause for concern it would be examined by Red Hat Legal and action would be taken. However Red Hat Legal has deemed that Mono is not a problem and thus it is included, as well as many programs using Mono such as Tomboy and Banshee.

The reason Gnote rather than Tomboy is on the CD is mainly the fact that it is smaller, since the Fedora CD doesn't have Mono on it in the first place the required dependency chain for Tomboy would be much larger. Especially since Fedora hasn't yet enabled the Mono 2 migration patches to reduce size which Ubuntu and Debian have whipped up.

Red Hat say they are concerned, but solely about shipping Mono in their own RHEL product not Fedora. They enforce this desire to keep RHEL Mono free in Fedora by treating Mono as a second class citizen, even down to people such as Bill Nottingham saying that discrimination based on language choice is not at all objectionable. However it is to be expected that a company which invests as much money in Java as Red Hat has little desire to support a competing, and in some ways technically superior, product (Mono) in their enterprise offerings. The whole endeavor would serve to undermine their current investments.

Now please stop using Fedora as part of your crusade, it's as tiresome as it is uninformed. The article you cite even goes so far as to say there is speculation of removing Mono from Fedora, something which is most definitely not the case. How would I know you wonder, well I pretty much run the Fedora Mono SIG and we have not been appraised of any such change nor has any such debate been had on the mailing lists. I have personally encouraged the anti-mono crowd within Fedora to propose such a "Feature" so we could have the debate once and for all but none have dared draft it up because they know Red Hat Legal already okayed Mono after it entered the protective realm of the OIN. By failing to do fact checking, you further this myth that Mono is somehow in grave danger of being removed from Fedora due to non-specific threats.

Please understand that by spreading this uninformed outright lie you are making life unduly hard for people actually working on Mono to enhance the Linux user experience for no good reason. You force us to defend our work and spend time dispelling these myths, time which could have been used much more productive. Time that would not bring developers closer to burn out. You are hurting me, my fellow Mono maintainers and Linux, please stop.

- David Nielsen

[directhex]

can someone explain all this to me?

I have to admit, I tried to read all this boycott novell stuff but I couldn't because

1. I did not understand what they want

2. it sounded like FUD to me

So what I understood is that Novell has signed this interoperation-deal with Microsoft and therefore they have also some shares (or what ever) in this Silverlight, which is a Microsoft-Flash? Is it like that?

And now, there is a programming language Mono, which is created by Microsoft and Novell uses it?
And Tomboy and Banshee are developed in Mono... this is the reason why these Boycott Novell guys say that Linux will be poisoned?

So, what is the issue and what makes all this dangerous? Maybe all this is obvious but I do not understand all this. Thats why: could someone explain?

Thanks!

Moonlight:

1) Silverlight is Microsoft's Flash competitor. Moonlight is Novell's Free Software implementation, which is done with approval from Microsoft (including providing a full official test suite to developers and licensed codecs to users)

2) When the collaboration in (1) was arranged, Microsoft offered a promise not to sue for patent-related issues anyone who obtains Moonlight from Novell, but noes not make any clear promises to those using distribution packages.

Mono:

3) Mono is an implementation of two standards, ECMA335 and ECMA334, which come from Microsoft, and are implemented by Microsoft as the .NET Framework.

4) Mono was started in 2001, 5 years before any Novell/Microsoft dealings

5) In 2006, Novell and Microsoft signed a deal promising not to sue each others' customers for patent infringements in their products. They make no promises not to sue each other, and no list of patents has ever been shown to anyone. Novell have stated in public that they aren't aware of any patent infringements in their products.

6) Some Free Software developers have written Free apps using Mono rather than alternatives such as Java. Banshee or Tomboy are examples.

7) Many (most) distributions have shipped some of the apps from (6) optionally or by default.

Shared:

7) Some people in the community see (5) as proof that (7), (3) and (2) are legally risky. They see (5) as a sign that the "community" is "poisoned" by Novell.

I think that articulates the matter in a neutral way.

Different distributions have different approaches to the "patent risk" question. Debian's approach and Ubuntu's approach are pretty much the same - assume there are no patent problems in an app until a demonstrable case of protected infringement is shown. For example, in the Mono case, there are no publicly known patent infringements. Even if some were to be revealed, Ubuntu and Debian would assume that the patent was not being enforced (as is the case for most patents) until shown otherwise, e.g. by contact from a patent holder or being shown details of a legal case surrounding the patent in question. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028347.html for the Ubuntu Technical Board (highest rank in the Ubuntu governance structure) ruling on the matter.

[DeadSuperHero]

After all the Sir Sane/Mr. Psychopath linsux.org posts here and on other sites, I'm really not sure whether to take this seriously, or whether its just a fork of your fsdaily and boycottnovell raid that is currently under way. Perhaps you can clarify before I spend any time researching your accusation?

While I do admit that many of the things I say are unkind, I speak the truth for the benefit of the community. There are a lot of very disturbing things about BN that could hurt this Linux community even more by dividing developers and users down the middle.

Perhaps you don't take kindly to my Sir Sane persona, but I assure you that it is merely a character. I've blogged many good things about Ubuntu on my blog (http://seanrtilley.blogspot.com) and recently Linux.com. (http://linux.com/community/blogs/The-Next-Step-Forward-When-Will-GNU-Linux-Have-REAL-Commercial-support-.html)

[gnomeuser]

I'm a Dave :D

I'm David, but never ever Dave.. does that count I wonder?

[Screwdriver0815]

thanks Directhex for the explanation.

So if I understand right, from the point of view of the Microsoft - Novell deal, only users of OpenSuse and SLED are 100% surely safe in terms of Microsoft sueings regarding Moonlight?

So my sight of the things is: if Microsoft sues a Distro like Ubuntu or Debian because they use this Moonlight... Ubuntu resp. Debian just send out an Update which removes Moonlight from each users system. Thats it? So asking generally: whats the problem? Why does Novell poison the Linux community with that?
Because the users of OpenSuse and SLED do not have to remove Moonlight? If Novell does such a Deal with Microsoft, they can not speak for all other Distros so they only can do a Deal on their own for themselves. And as Novell is a independend company they are free to do what they want, I think.

But: who is using Moonlight anyway? I never heard about this.

Regarding the Mono stuff it is still a little bit confusing for me.
So Novell and Microsoft promised that they will not sue each others customers but if they want to sue each other, then they can do it. Its strange... but anyway.
But what has this to do with the Moonlight deal? If Microsoft and Novell want to fight each other on court, they only can do it regarding Mono as far as I understand this, because in the Silver/Moonlight deal they agreed not to sue each other for that.

But anyway, if Microsoft sues Novell or the users of Mono in general, they also could remove the apps, which are written in Mono. Thats it.
And the thing with Novell being free to do deals as much as they want and not being in charge for the whole Linux community is still valid, I think.

If we now would boycott Novell, which advantage would we get from this? Isn't Ubuntu or Debian responsible for their respective stuff? So if Debian or Ubuntu put in a Novell app, Moonlight and also one which is written in Mono... then they are in charge. But Novell can not say to the Debian/ Ubuntu guys: "you are not allowed" as long as the app's are licensed under the GPL, I think.

Its still strange to me that Novell should be the only one who is guilty.

And what are the consequences, beside of FUD and splitting the community? Which advantage do we have from this?

[gnomeuser]

But: who is using Moonlight anyway? I never heard about this.


Any site that uses Silverlight will, eventually, work with Moonlight so you might one day be a user if you want to access content on such pages. However currently only Silverlight 1 is fully supported and Silverlight 2 (and upcoming SL3) are only partially supported with full support expected later this year. Meaning right now, most of the SL content out there doesn't really work with Moonlight.

However the development schedule has been quite impressive and results are quick to surface. The team has been extremely quick to catch up and even now that SL3 is in beta they have some of the features ready in Moonlight today.

Another place you are likely to see Moonlight will be on your desktop. It is a very nice tool for building next generation applications with all that entails of bling and such. Aaron Bockover (the Banshee lead developer) will have 2 presentations at this years GUADEC later this month on building desktop 2.0 using Moonlight. One of the examples he is supposedly going to show off will be a Moonlight frontend for Banshee. It should blow your socks off.

[handy]

You guessed it, I think that the majority of the anti-mono crowd are running headless servers too. (Couldn't resist) :)

Live & let live, & let time (=experience) determine the next step. Why shut down the development of something when it is immature? Let it grow up & show us what its got for us, if it is a failure, boy will there be some lessons learned, apart from the fact that it will be modified & feed other FOSS projects.

PEACE.

[MountainX]

I want to remove mono completely from Ubuntu 9.04. What is the best way to do this?

I can replace Tomboy with Gnote.
What is the replacement for F-Spot?
Is there anything else I will need to replace?

[frodon]

I love gthumb as photo manager, it is a possible replacement.

[Dragonbite]

I want to remove mono completely from Ubuntu 9.04. What is the best way to do this?

I can replace Tomboy with Gnote.
What is the replacement for F-Spot?
Is there anything else I will need to replace?

F-Spot? you could use
gThumbs, but it isn't as featured as F-Spot
digiKam, but that is built for KDE and will pull in some libraries (and look awkward)
Google Picasa (http://www.google.com/picasa/).. basically the best bet at this point but you'll have to download and install it from the website, it isn't in the repositories. This is what I use at this time in Gnome.


The big Mono apps are Tomboy (notes), Beagle (search), F-Spot (picture management), and Banshee (music/media player). I don't think they've included Beagle lately or Banshee.

[MountainX]

Thanks!

Picasa for Linux looks like a good choice to replace F-Spot.

What packages do I need to remove to remove all of mono? Or should I just use Synaptic?

[Dragonbite]

Thanks!

Picasa for Linux looks like a good choice to replace F-Spot.

What packages do I need to remove to remove all of mono? Or should I just use Synaptic?

See what Synaptic comes up with. Plus I think in the properties you can list what files/applications it depends on though the dangerous thing is if anything else uses those.

I don't know if Synaptic is smart enough to remove all unused libraries as well or not. "Completely Remove" only removes the configuration files too as far as I can tell.

[directhex]

Jaunty and earlier: mono-common and libmono0

Additionally, on Jaunty, due to a packaging bug, you need to manually remove /usr/lib/mono AFTER REMOVING THE ABOVE TWO PACKAGES, NOT BEFORE.

[MountainX]

Jaunty and earlier: mono-common and libmono0

Additionally, on Jaunty, due to a packaging bug, you need to manually remove /usr/lib/mono AFTER REMOVING THE ABOVE TWO PACKAGES, NOT BEFORE.

Thanks!

[zekopeko]

Web interface is _not_ daemon mode, nor anything remotely (pun intended) like it.

Can I run utorrent on a headleass server with no gui? I doubt it.

i doubt that windows users (ie. those using utorrent - a windows applications) run headless windows servers...

[Viva]

I'm sick of this boycott Novell ********. I'm not a fan of Mono and think it is overrated, but these idiots are scaring potential linux users with their conspiracy theories.

[sydbat]

Because, of course, I don't know about 6 different Daves in my little corner of the world alone...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmQRmHgExV0

[DeadSuperHero]

I saw this in the Digg upcoming section, figured I'd share it.

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Schestowitz_tries_to_get_Canonical_people_fired_ov er_mono/who

[SKLP]

Any site that uses Silverlight will, eventually, work with Moonlight so you might one day be a user if you want to access content on such pages. However currently only Silverlight 1 is fully supported and Silverlight 2 (and upcoming SL3) are only partially supported with full support expected later this year. Meaning right now, most of the SL content out there doesn't really work with Moonlight.

However the development schedule has been quite impressive and results are quick to surface. The team has been extremely quick to catch up and even now that SL3 is in beta they have some of the features ready in Moonlight today.

Another place you are likely to see Moonlight will be on your desktop. It is a very nice tool for building next generation applications with all that entails of bling and such. Aaron Bockover (the Banshee lead developer) will have 2 presentations at this years GUADEC later this month on building desktop 2.0 using Moonlight. One of the examples he is supposedly going to show off will be a Moonlight frontend for Banshee. It should blow your socks off.
Silverlight/Moonlight seems to be a pretty cool piece of technology. You state that any SL content will work in moon, but at present (afaik) there are no announced plans for moonlight to get support for the microsoft DRM.

It is a bit sad that Microsoft decided to put DRM support in Silverlight, as if they hadn't Moonlight could have become a very nice cross-platform alternative to Flash.
If they eventually get DRM support in moonlight it will require a blob from Microsoft so it won't be freer, nor more portable, than Flash is today. And Flash (I don't like flash at all for the record) content does not seem to be DRM protected today for the most part, so for that content it is at least possible to make a LEGAL open source player. The reason flash content is not usually DRM proteted is probably only for compability with Flash 9 and whatnot. And in a while, when Flash 10 is popular enough, both Flash and Silverlight would become solutions that provide DRM. So it will be impossible to implement legal players to both in a 100% free software manner.

So the best solution to the web video situation is probably HTML5 <video> as it does not support DRM at all.

It would have been nice to be able to use C# and Python instead of client-side JavaScript, though.

[Sef]

Wikipedia article on Mono (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29). For those like me, who haven't understood what the fuss is about, read it.

From the article:

Mono consists of three groups of components:


Core components
Mono/Linux/GNOME development stack
Microsoft compatibility stack.

Mono’s implementation of those components of the .NET stack not submitted to the ECMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMA) for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project. In particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits.

[DeadSuperHero]

Most of it is a bunch of hubub from the Boycott Novell community.

RMS actually approves of it in this video.

Stallman about Mono (Padova 2007) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpLWzPRfvU#lq-hq)

[Grant A.]

This really needs to be pinned, IMHO.

[Tews]

This really needs to be pinned, IMHO.

Why would this need to be pinned???? :confused:

[saulgoode]

Mono’s implementation of those components of the .NET stack not submitted to the ECMA for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project.
This Wikipedia statement is misleading as it implies that patents are not a concern for the ECMA'd components of .NET. The actuality of the current situation is that those ECMA-associated patents are of particular concern because:


The Mono Project assures us that Microsoft holds patents which cover the technology of the ECMA standard being implemented by Mono.
Novell, the corporate sponsor of the Mono Project, has negotiated on behalf of its customers a patent licensing agreement with Microsoft that covers the Mono Project, but this coverage is only for Novell's customers.
The Mono Project does NOT assure us that they've made any attempt to work around the ECMA-associated patents.
Microsoft has NOT provided licensing for those patents under distribution terms which fulfill the standards of the OSI's Open Source Definition, the FSF's definition of Free Software, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

[monsterstack]

It's a shame, really. But if Microsoft offered all distributors of Linux a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent licence to use Mono for whatever purpose, all of the bickering would go away overnight. In fact, if they had done that in 2006, instead of the deal they actually did make, sites like boycottnovell.com wouldn't exist. And nobody would be arguing about it. And everything would be okay in the world.

Nice dream.

[Swarms]

It's a shame, really. But if Microsoft offered all distributors of Linux a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent licence to use Mono for whatever purpose, all of the bickering would go away overnight. In fact, if they had done that in 2006, instead of the deal they actually did make, sites like boycottnovell.com wouldn't exist. And nobody would be arguing about it. And everything would be okay in the world.

Nice dream.

I do not believe that is the case: many "linux zealots" hate everything that has a connection to Microsoft, so they hate the mono project too.

[monsterstack]

I do not believe that is the case: many "linux zealots" hate everything that has a connection to Microsoft, so they hate the mono project too.

There may be some, but I've never seen any attack sites trying to convince people to boycott the Wine project, or Samba for that matter. I just think the patent deal specifically (not that it really bothers me much), is just evidence that Microsoft doesn't really get free software. They're just really a bit naff, you know? Like, "Help you Linux guys out? Sure! Let me just call a team of lawyers to make an incomprehensible spume of dubious legal obligations first!" I mean, how boring is that?

[directhex]

There may be some, but I've never seen any attack sites trying to convince people to boycott the Wine project, or Samba for that matter. I just think the patent deal specifically (not that it really bothers me much), is just evidence that Microsoft doesn't really get free software. They're just really a bit naff, you know? Like, "Help you Linux guys out? Sure! Let me just call a team of lawyers to make an incomprehensible spume of dubious legal obligations first!" I mean, how boring is that?

People were making up FUD about Mono for 4 years before the Novell/MS deal

And nobody ever mentions the Sun/MS deal from 2004, because Sun are sweetness and light

So no, there is absolutely no circumstance under which Mono won't cause stomach ulcers all round.

[philcamlin]

i dont like novell either :popcorn:

[zekopeko]

There may be some, but I've never seen any attack sites trying to convince people to boycott the Wine project, or Samba for that matter. I just think the patent deal specifically (not that it really bothers me much), is just evidence that Microsoft doesn't really get free software. They're just really a bit naff, you know? Like, "Help you Linux guys out? Sure! Let me just call a team of lawyers to make an incomprehensible spume of dubious legal obligations first!" I mean, how boring is that?

Considering the problems Microsoft is in, the patent deal is the best option business wise.
MS has huge problems with patents. I think they pay around 2 billion dollars a year for patent infringement(and that was a couple of years ago).
They started to make cross licensing deals (like the one with Novell) so to stave of the threat of patents.
There is nothing compelling for MS in giving a world wide licence for alleged mono patents since they aren't getting nothing in return.

So why is MS being sued for patent infringement? Don't they have an army of lawyers that search patent database's and their code?
Most likely no, since there is just to much patents and code to cover.
That's why MS is doing cross licencing deals with other software vendors.

[monsterstack]

People were making up FUD about Mono for 4 years before the Novell/MS deal

And nobody ever mentions the Sun/MS deal from 2004, because Sun are sweetness and light

So no, there is absolutely no circumstance under which Mono won't cause stomach ulcers all round.
Yeah, but it took the deal itself to make people pissed off enough to start an entire website dedicated to boycotting two companies. If not for that, the complaining would have been limited to a few Slashdot flamewars and nothing more, just like the Sun deal you speak of.

Considering the problems Microsoft is in, the patent deal is the best option business wise.
MS has huge problems with patents. I think they pay around 2 billion dollars a year for patent infringement(and that was a couple of years ago).
They started to make cross licensing deals (like the one with Novell) so to stave of the threat of patents.
There is nothing compelling for MS in giving a world wide licence for alleged mono patents since they aren't getting nothing in return.

So why is MS being sued for patent infringement? Don't they have an army of lawyers that search patent database's and their code?
Most likely no, since there is just to much patents and code to cover.
That's why MS is doing cross licencing deals with other software vendors.

I'm aware of the why they're doing it, but this still doesn't stop me from wanting to drive a stake through the heart of the guy who came up with the idea of software patents in the first place.

[adzik]

Since no one's mentioned it yet, I thought I'd chip in a thought.
Mono does pose a (slight) risk to consultants like myself. Having a few clients that I recommend and help roll out certain Linux systems for, none of which wanted the Novell solutions, this poses a liability risk to me and my clients. It has no bearing on whether I like mono or not. If a client does not use the licensed Novell product, I can't do it out of self-preservation.
I am not a multi-million dollar company yet that I can afford a patent notice one day from any company, or the work and reputation involved to remove all the offending instances were it come to that.

On a personal level, I don't believe there is anything at issue with mono. The idea is beneficial for the entire OS ecosystem.
The problem occurs in the business space and needs to be addressed, or if not - avoided.
Perhaps the mono project could spearhead a licensing arrangement with MS for business if they believe it would work.

If someone knows if there is assurances that mono can be used on non-novell systems without the legal grey-zone, I'd love to know. It would certainly be helpful.

[directhex]

Since no one's mentioned it yet, I thought I'd chip in a thought.
Mono does pose a (slight) risk to consultants like myself. Having a few clients that I recommend and help roll out certain Linux systems for, none of which wanted the Novell solutions, this poses a liability risk to me and my clients. It has no bearing on whether I like mono or not. If a client does not use the licensed Novell product, I can't do it out of self-preservation.
I am not a multi-million dollar company yet that I can afford a patent notice one day from any company, or the work and reputation involved to remove all the offending instances were it come to that.

On a personal level, I don't believe there is anything at issue with mono. The idea is beneficial for the entire OS ecosystem.
The problem occurs in the business space and needs to be addressed, or if not - avoided.
Perhaps the mono project could spearhead a licensing arrangement with MS for business if they believe it would work.

If someone knows if there is assurances that mono can be used on non-novell systems without the legal grey-zone, I'd love to know. It would certainly be helpful.

It would be nice for such clarity - but I don't think it's currently available. And really, that's the point as to why such deals are struck. Not having "insurance" (for want of a better term... perhaps "protection racket" is better) is no guarantee of greater risk, but it's still distasteful

That said, are you deploying Linux, knowing that Microsoft have made statements regarding hundreds of violated patents (which only Novell or Xandros are free from)?

[adzik]

It would be nice for such clarity - but I don't think it's currently available. And really, that's the point as to why such deals are struck. Not having "insurance" (for want of a better term... perhaps "protection racket" is better) is no guarantee of greater risk, but it's still distasteful

That said, are you deploying Linux, knowing that Microsoft have made statements regarding hundreds of violated patents (which only Novell or Xandros are free from)?


I mainly arrange deployment of systems that are either red hat, or ones that have extensive coverage on what is legally permitted. This way we usually keep the systems covered by the licensing vendor or pull the plug on the components heavily in question if a custom arrangement is needed. Many of the patents that MS described aren't related much to my end. I asked for clarification on this in my particular situation (from a proper legal source). I suppose if they want to sue people over their double-click patent and progress bars, they'll have to do that in court with many other very large corporations before I ever get contacted. Plus, proving there's no prior art involved would be a challenge.
This is where OIN (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/patents.php) can also be very helpful to the general business of open source.
All in all, with MONO, it's undocumented legal nature at the end of the day is what I choose to avoid. In my experience, MS tends to not be a goodwill company, and licensing is what it lives by.

[Dragonbite]

It's a shame, really. But if Microsoft offered all distributors of Linux a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent licence to use Mono for whatever purpose, all of the bickering would go away overnight.

No it wouldn't.. because it's still Microsoft, MICROSOFT I SAY!!, It's *eeeeevvvviiillllllllllllll* (add insane laughter if you'd like)

:popcorn:

[monsterstack]

No it wouldn't.. because it's still Microsoft, MICROSOFT I SAY!!, It's *eeeeevvvviiillllllllllllll* (add insane laughter if you'd like)

:popcorn:

If people choose to have nothing at all to do with Microsoft out of principle, I say let them. There are are all sorts of good reasons to be distrustful and suspicious and even hateful of Microsoft. But if they actually made a bunch of good, open and free applications with no strings attached, then threads such as these wouldn't exist. It's the existence of the attached (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx) [microsoft.com] strings (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/faq.mspx) [microsoft.com] that scares people, not the fact that it's a Microsoft-invented thing. Whether or not those attached strings really are dangerous is not a subject I can be bothered to care about any more, but it is short-sighted at best to claim that the only reason people have a problem with Mono is because it's related to Microsoft.

[sertse]

You know, I thought continual tagging of "yet another mono thread", might actually cause people to rethink, and not rehash the same arguments for over again. *sigh*

I thought the intention of this thread is background reading, an overview of the mono situation so people wgo wish to participate in the mono wars can at least do it on an informed basis, but *sigh*

[directhex]

I mainly arrange deployment of systems that are either red hat, or ones that have extensive coverage on what is legally permitted. This way we usually keep the systems covered by the licensing vendor or pull the plug on the components heavily in question if a custom arrangement is needed. Many of the patents that MS described aren't related much to my end. I asked for clarification on this in my particular situation (from a proper legal source). I suppose if they want to sue people over their double-click patent and progress bars, they'll have to do that in court with many other very large corporations before I ever get contacted. Plus, proving there's no prior art involved would be a challenge.
This is where OIN (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/patents.php) can also be very helpful to the general business of open source.
All in all, with MONO, it's undocumented legal nature at the end of the day is what I choose to avoid. In my experience, MS tends to not be a goodwill company, and licensing is what it lives by.

Mono is in OIN though

[adzik]

Mono is in OIN though

Yes, you're absolutely right. I think what we're referring to is it's underlying distribution rights.
To my understanding, there is no clear method of licensing, distribution or otherwise of .net's underpinnings, making this a grey area and a risk in business on the non-MS platform.

I believe this is what is in question.
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm

Anyway, enough said.
My initial question was only if anyone has clearer knowledge of whether a proper (legal) licensing situation existed for deployment in a corporate/business environment - outside of novell and xandros of course. Maybe one day this will be answered one way or another.

[directhex]

Maybe one day this will be answered one way or another.

That would be nice. But I'm not sure whether a) such a procedure could be done without enormous expense to all parties involved, and b) whether such an expense would be worthwhile, since the ZOMG NO M$ people would never ever be satisfied with a personal irrevocable contract from Bill Gates promising a lifetime supply of ice cream alongside any alleged patent nonsense

[Giant Speck]

I think there are three camps of people when it comes to being against Mono.

1. The people who think that including Mono makes Linux uncomfortably close to Microsoft.

2. The people who think that there are enough programming languages and that Mono is redundant.

3. The people who think that Mono shouldn't be included in Ubuntu simply because there are already too many programs bloating up the installation disk (*cough*Evolution*cough*).

[Dragonbite]

I think there are three camps of people when it comes to being against Mono.

1. The people who think that including Mono makes Linux uncomfortably close to Microsoft.

2. The people who think that there are enough programming languages and that Mono is redundant.

3. The people who think that Mono shouldn't be included in Ubuntu simply because there are already too many programs bloating up the installation disk (*cough*Evolution*cough*).

That's a pretty good summary.

I was surprised when I tried out a CentOS 5.3 LiveCD, I saw they hand Thunderbird included and I couldn't find Evolution.

[SKLP]

I think there are three camps of people when it comes to being against Mono.

1. The people who think that including Mono makes Linux uncomfortably close to Microsoft.

2. The people who think that there are enough programming languages and that Mono is redundant.

3. The people who think that Mono shouldn't be included in Ubuntu simply because there are already too many programs bloating up the installation disk (*cough*Evolution*cough*).

I'd also suggest 4. The people who seem to believe that it carries is a larger patent risk than other pieces of software. (maybe due to boycottnovell and other sites spreading fud)

I believe 1 and 4 may be the biggest groups.

[monsterstack]

Well this should get an interesting response. I will quote the article here (Stallman wrote it, so as far as I'm concerned it's GNU/GPL-FDL licensed, and some people have an aversion to going to that site anyway):

Edit: Actually it comes from a post from the Free Software Foundation site, here (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono) [fsf.org]. Boycott Novell just reposted it.

rms says (http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/26/stallman-says-no-to-mono/) [boycottnovell.com]:
Debian’s decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn’t make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.

Thoughts? Opinions? And don't shoot the messenger plzkthx.

[Giant Speck]

Is there any solid proof it is the real RMS?

[dragos240]

+1

[Grant A.]

He talks about trying to avoid them, and yet he doesn't want to lose Tomboy? I am now confused.

[OutOfReach]

is there any solid proof it is the real rms?

+1

[RiceMonster]

If someone has the user name rms, it must be rms himself!

[monsterstack]

He talks about trying to avoid them, and yet he doesn't want to lose Tomboy? I am now confused.

As I understand it, rms likes free implementations of C# (Mono), and the applications people have made using them. He's scared, though, that all of those applications will disappear if Microsoft eventually make a patent claim. It's not really that hard to understand. Free software = good; no software = bad.

[.Maleficus.]

If someone has the user name rms, it must be rms himself!
Well of course silly!



+1 to the question. I'm very skeptical right now.

[Grant A.]

As I understand it, rms likes free implementations of C# (Mono), and the applications people have made using them. He's scared, though, that all of those applications will disappear if Microsoft eventually make a patent claim. It's not really that hard to understand. Free software = good; no software = bad.

But doesn't he realize the flurry of patent suits from the Open Invention Network that will come against Microsoft, if that ever happens?

[ghindo]

No offense, but RMS is kind of an extremist when it comes to software licenses. His views tend not to be very pragmatic. Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot for Free software, but there are definitely times when his views aren't especially practical. I have yet to be shown in a conclusive, objective manner that Mono is a threat to anything, and RMS's article doesn't change that.

Again, this is assuming that the article was actually written by RMS.

[monsterstack]

But doesn't he realize the flurry of patent suits from the Open Invention Network that will come against Microsoft, if that ever happens?

I don't know. It's a very good point, though.

[Sealbhach]

Tomboy, F-Spot and Banshee will be the three Mono apps in Karmic, afaik. I think the OP is right to suggest that Debian and other Linux distros steer clear of it, why take a gratuitous risk? Tomboy is one of the first things I delete because I have no use for it whatsoever.

.

[jonian_g]

No offense, but RMS is kind of an extremist when it comes to software licenses. His views tend not to be very pragmatic. Don't get me wrong, he's done a lot for Free software, but there are definitely times when his views aren't especially practical. I have yet to be shown in a conclusive, objective manner that Mono is a threat to anything, and RMS's article doesn't change that.

Again, this is assuming that the article was actually written by RMS.

Well, I'll get you wrong. I don't see anything extremist in Stallman's opinion about mono.

[swoll1980]

I could start a forum account, and call myself RMS. That doesn't mean I'm RMS.

[DeadSuperHero]

At the very least, it's quoted from the FSF's site. I think his argument is good, it's not the typical "Mono is EVIL!" dribble BN usually pumps out.

Regardless of whether Mono is a good language, bad language, "inherently evil", etc: at the end of the day, it all points back to patents and what can be done with them.

[swoll1980]

Tomboy, F-Spot and Banshee will be the three Mono apps in Karmic, afaik. I think the OP is right to suggest that Debian and other Linux distros steer clear of it, why take a gratuitous risk?

.

The same reason I still fly after 9-11, because you can't let people use fear to control you, or they win.

[monsterstack]

At the very least, it's quoted from the FSF's site. I think his argument is good, it's not the typical "Mono is EVIL!" dribble BN usually pumps out.

Regardless of whether Mono is a good language, bad language, "inherently evil", etc: at the end of the day, it all points back to patents and what can be done with them.

Ah, I didn't know it was from a FSF article. First post changed accordingly. Can a mod rename the title of the thread to something less click-bait-ish? "RMS on Mono [via fsf.org]" or something?

[Grant A.]

The same reason I still fly after 9-11, because you can't let people use fear to control you, or they win.

That may be true, but there's a difference between terrorists, and Microsoft possibly abusing the legal system. Microsoft is a very untrustworthy company, as we have been shown in the past few years with all the FUD, and the Halloween documents.


Note: I don't fly because of the crash rate of planes. They've been dropping out of the sky like flies, lately.

[swoll1980]

That may be true, but there's a difference between terrorists, and Microsoft possibly abusing the legal system.


The tactics they implement are different, but the strategy is the same. Scare people into doing what you want them to do.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Maybe someone could try contact RMS to see if he really did post this...

[phrostbyte]

If Microsoft ever sued Mono they'd **** off not just Linux users, but also many (most?) of their own developer base. It would probably be the dumbest thing they could target strategically. It's not going to happen. This "ooooooooooh Mono is scary" thing is pretty stupid.

[monsterstack]

Maybe someone could try contact RMS to see if he really did post this...
He did. C'mon, man, read the thread.

[conundrumx]

I just wanted to echo some prior statements and try to clarify. RMS has done a lot of great things for Free software, and really freedom from copyrights as a whole. He's had a lot of great ideas. However, he is definitely an extremist when it comes to software licensing. It doesn't have to be about Mono, just in general. RMS seems to have a very narrow, black and white view of things.

Personally, I tend to agree with Linus Torvalds on software licensing: use whatever's best. If there's good proprietary software to be had, people shouldn't be condemned for it or ashamed of it.

As far as Mono in particular, nothing but FUD and stupidity. There are plenty of great F/OSS projects based on it, and there's no reason to waste time on stupid things like Gnote.

[DeadSuperHero]

As far as Mono in particular, nothing but FUD and stupidity. There are plenty of great F/OSS projects based on it, and there's no reason to waste time on stupid things like Gnote.

Actually, don't bash it before you try it. As of using it for a few days, I've found that it's extremely stable, responsive, and the interface basically looks like Tomboy. If there really is a threat from Microsoft patents, at the very least switching to Gnote is non-trivial.

[k2t0f12d]

There is no reason not to pursue development of a free software C# implementation. It is good to be able to run programs in freedom regardless of the language in which they are written. What RMS advocates is to avoid making any distribution dependent on free software projects written in C#. That way if C# implementation were ever made non-free by patent attack, the free software platform wouldn't suffer in any way.

If it could be proved that C# would never be made non-free by any future litigation, then the only reason to avoid an implementation of C# would be to keep a streamlined GNU+Linux system.

I personally think LLVM is more interesting technology anyway.

[phrostbyte]

They aren't bundling Mono for the sake of bundling Mono, they are bundling Mono because it's a dependency for applications that are bundled. Kind of like the reason Python is bundled with Ubuntu, because some apps are written in Python in default install.

I really don't like this Mono hate. Mono enables rapid application development, something that was sorely missing in Linux desktop 5-10 years ago. It also allows Windows programmers to not be as scared of Linux and they feel more comfortable with the OS and FUD it less. .NET skills directly transfer to Mono and they can make high quality applications that run on Linux without pretty much any learning curve.

In order for free software desktop to progress we need to provide the tools enable all programmers to feel welcome, not just Python or C experts. We need to be compatable with all programming languages that people use. Please attack/hate Microsoft (I don't mind this :)), but don't hate programming languages just because they come from Microsoft..

My 2 cents.

[starcannon]

Here's a link to the article at fsf.org.
Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C# (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono/view?searchterm=mono)

by Richard M. Stallman (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono/view?searchterm=mono)

This should lay to rest all the people taking a quote of RMS out of context as fully endorsing mono when he spoke on the subject at a convention. I'm not a Stallmanite, but I do fully agree with him on this matter; that said, as has been pointed out, the distributions themselves will have to deal with any possible legal troubles regarding the use of mono, not the end users. The only thing that would likely ever be lost is time spent on mono projects if those projects were ever to be killed by MS litigation (time is valuable, but fortunately there is no shortage of it in the foreseeable future).

Anyway, love it, hate it, or don't care about it, Mono is here, and its being implemented; so all we can do now is wait and see, bickering about it won't solve anything at this point.

[conundrumx]

Actually, don't bash it before you try it. As of using it for a few days, I've found that it's extremely stable, responsive, and the interface basically looks like Tomboy. If there really is a threat from Microsoft patents, at the very least switching to Gnote is non-trivial.

Think of it this way: how much development time and effort is wasted on Gnote because of FUD? How much wasted energy by the community as a whole will result from duplicating an existing program in a different language? If someone decided to rewrite Gedit in C# "just because" there would be massive fallout and bitching, so I just don't understand why people would embrace Gnote.

[DeadSuperHero]

Think of it this way: how much development time and effort is wasted on Gnote because of FUD? How much wasted energy by the community as a whole will result from duplicating an existing program in a different language? If someone decided to rewrite Gedit in C# "just because" there would be massive fallout and bitching, so I just don't understand why people would embrace Gnote.

Ultimately, does it matter? You're kind of getting worked up over something that has marginally no effect on you. If you had never heard of Gnote, it wouldn't even matter. It doesn't hurt anyone, it's just an option for people who don't want mono, just like Gnome/Gtk was a solution for people that didn't want KDE/Qt.

After all, isn't choice one of the key aspects of FOSS?

[phrostbyte]

Think of it this way: how much development time and effort is wasted on Gnote because of FUD? How much wasted energy by the community as a whole will result from duplicating an existing program in a different language? If someone decided to rewrite Gedit in C# "just because" there would be massive fallout and bitching, so I just don't understand why people would embrace Gnote.

TBH, I think Gnote was also a intellectual challenge to see how far the author could go converting a C# program to C++. In a sense it's an interesting problem.

[MikeTheC]

The same reason I still fly after 9-11, because you can't let people use fear to control you, or they win.

That sort of sentiment operates on so many levels, swoll.

Big +1 to you for having posted it here.

[monsterstack]

Err, continue.

[Giant Speck]

Note: I don't fly because of the crash rate of planes. They've been dropping out of the sky like flies, lately.

Do you drive or ride in a motor vehicle as your primary mode of transportation?

Odds of dying during your lifetime in a(n):
motor vehicle accident: 1 in 84
aviation accident: 1 in 6,460

Odds of dying during one year in a(n):
motor vehicle accident: 1 in 6,539
aviation accident: 1 in 502,554

[MikeTheC]

Do you drive or ride in a motor vehicle as your primary mode of transportation?

Yes, however you have to understand Grant A's motor vehicle is actually a kevlar-coated 80-ton tank with massive armor plating, spiked cleats, all made from non-corroding metals, and is powered through a water/electrolytic fuel system. He's also got 10" canons, fore and aft, as well as a range of other defense systems.

His vehicle is quite safe.

[Giant Speck]

Yes, however you have to understand Grant A's motor vehicle is actually a kevlar-coated 80-ton tank with massive armor plating, spiked cleats, all made from non-corroding metals, and is powered through a water/electrolytic fuel system. He's also got 10" canons, fore and aft, as well as a range of other defense systems.

His vehicle is quite safe.

What if he gets trapped inside? Or if he gets out and forgets to put the parking brake on and it backs up and flattens him to death?

[Grant A.]

His vehicle is quite safe.

Not for the other people on the road. ;)

[eragon100]

I use banshee and f-spot. I think banshee is the best music and video player for linux currently, it's the only anyway that can play both music and video and has libraries for both. (I don't need a complete media center.)

I don't think microsoft will sue mono, because Novell and MS have a legal agreement not to sue each other. Novell is the force behind mono. So even if MS wanted to sue Novell, which would be stupid because it would only decrease the popularity of their own programming platform, I don't think they could because they have a contract with them.

[bryonak]

I just wanted to echo some prior statements and try to clarify. RMS has done a lot of great things for Free software, and really freedom from copyrights as a whole. He's had a lot of great ideas. However, he is definitely an extremist when it comes to software licensing. It doesn't have to be about Mono, just in general. RMS seems to have a very narrow, black and white view of things.
[...]
As far as Mono in particular, nothing but FUD and stupidity. There are plenty of great F/OSS projects based on it, and there's no reason to waste time on stupid things like Gnote.

Stallman has a few extreme opinions on some select issues, but many of his arguments are rational and in the moderate range (e.g. the one about Mono).
The bulk of his views, particularly about software licensing, is already contained within the text of the GPL... wich few people in the FOSS community would call "extreme" ;)

About Mono... (strong) opposers claim that it's only to run Windows apps on Linux, (strong) proponents tout this as an "almost coincidential" side effect to having a good framework that enables quick development of native Linux apps.
What makes me wonder is why do they have to label the processes foo.exe?

As for GNote... well it obviously has it's userbase, people who prefer it over Tomboy for whatever reason. Which means it should be developed.
And it gets a plus for making the desktop more lightweight.

For me, GNote is graphically too bloated and the note taking process itself is too circumstancial, because I don't want to waste time on "layouting" my notes... KNotes (on Gnome!) just fits the bill, while Tomboy is out of consideration (same as GNote, just slower).



Offtopic: what are the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident involving tanks in Grant A's city?

[directhex]

What makes me wonder is why do they have to label the processes foo.exe?

Essentially, because the ECMA335 spec says so, and there's no enormous benefit to NOT doing so (whereas being spec compliant was rather useful in the earliest days of Mono where the Mono compiler and libs needed to be compiled with the MS.NET compiler). That said, we (the downstream packagers) would we open to the idea of patches which enable use of a secondary file extension (e.g. .cliapp and .clilib) as long as it worked fine with the GAC. As it stands, it would cause a problem with assembly references to simply change it without patches, but it would be fine on unreferences assemblies:

directhex@desire:/tmp$ gmcs hello.cs
directhex@desire:/tmp$ mv hello.exe hello.cliapp
directhex@desire:/tmp$ mono hello.cliapp
Hello, World!

[MikeTheC]

What if he gets trapped inside? Or if he gets out and forgets to put the parking brake on and it backs up and flattens him to death?

That would suck.

[SKLP]

If mono is threatened with a specific patent claim, mono could probably just work around it( and at worst case, people would have to make some tiny changes to their C# apps to make them compatible again.). It's the same with all software basically (until software patents hopefully becomes abolished).

I suppose RMS could be right though, but I do not believe it.

[froggyswamp]

http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono


We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.
+1

[SKLP]

Stallman has a few extreme opinions on some select issues, but many of his arguments are rational and in the moderate range (e.g. the one about Mono).
Maybe, I do not agree with all of his views though (for instance this one regarding mono)

The bulk of his views, particularly about software licensing, is already contained within the text of the GPL... wich few people in the FOSS community would call "extreme" ;)Many people dislike the GPL and non-permissive licenses in general, including myself. Just look at the large amounts of software available under permissive licenses (MIT, BSD or others). Open source software is nice, but I would consider someone who considers it to be *UNETHICAL* to touch any proprietary software to be, yes, somewhat of an extremist.

[-grubby]

C# [...] approved as a standard by Ecma (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270)


.

[koenn]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia's article on C#
C# [...] approved as a standard by Ecma (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270)

The issue is not about approved standards, but about the posibility that C# is patented; and therefore the patent holder could (try and) stop the use of C# implementations and programs build with it. - http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[zekopeko]

The issue is not about approved standards, but about the posibility that C# is patented; and therefore the patent holder could (try and) stop the use of C# implementations and programs build with it. - http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

hahahaha!!! total lulz! the man that created GCC by re-implementing a proprietary compiler (loaded with patents) is now calling somebody out on the thing he did! and not to mention that his beloved FSF has a .NET implementation of his own.
Hypocrisy is dripping from his every word.

[koenn]

hahahaha!!! total lulz! the man that created GCC by re-implementing a proprietary compiler (loaded with patents) is now calling somebody out on the thing he did!
a compiler as something rathr different from a language, especially if it's a language closely linked to a development framework, such as .NET.
And you're the first one I ever heared claim that the gnu C compiler infringes on patents, so excuse me if I don't believe you. Show me facts.

and not to mention that his beloved FSF has a .NET implementation of his own.
Hypocrisy is dripping from his every word.
They made a .NET implementation because it's their goal to make a free implementation of any language out there, but they recommend not to use or distribute it, for the reasons stated. Pretty straightforward and out in the open, I don't see any hypocrisy.

[mister_pink]

hahahaha!!! total lulz! the man that created GCC by re-implementing a proprietary compiler (loaded with patents) is now calling somebody out on the thing he did! and not to mention that his beloved FSF has a .NET implementation of his own.
Hypocrisy is dripping from his every word.

Did you read the article - Its not even that long! He explicitly explains why mono or portable.net are not the problem.

[saulgoode]

hahahaha!!! total lulz! the man that created GCC by re-implementing a proprietary compiler (loaded with patents) is now calling somebody out on the thing he did! and not to mention that his beloved FSF has a .NET implementation of his own.
Hypocrisy is dripping from his every word.
The C programming language was initially written in 1969, well before it was possible to even copyright source code for software. Richard Stallman started work on GCC at about the same time as the USPTO started granting software patents (early- to mid-80s). Anything implemented in the language before that time would not have been patented; and it was not until a decade later that software patents started being granted more regularly.

In more basic terms, software patents effectively did not exist when Richard Stallman was working on his C language compiler, and there is no hypocrisy in his petition. (You will also find that the GCC developers have been extremely scrupulous with regard to patents over the last two decades, avoiding patented technologies when even marginally questionable, as well as benefitting from direct involvement from IBM (http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27005175&aid=1) including Free Software-compliant pledges of licensing (http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf)).

[zekopeko]

Did you read the article - Its not even that long! He explicitly explains why mono or portable.net are not the problem.

he's being passive-aggressive. Mono or Portable.Net aren't a problem but the underlying language(?) is as far as RS thinks.

[zekopeko]

a compiler as something rathr different from a language, especially if it's a language closely linked to a development framework, such as .NET.
And you're the first one I ever heared claim that the gnu C compiler infringes on patents, so excuse me if I don't believe you. Show me facts.

The same can be said about mono or any other MS technology that is re-implemented as free software.
But the point is that considering the number of software patents out there (in US) writing anything more complex then a "Hello,World" program is going to infringe on some patent.


They made a .NET implementation because it's their goal to make a free implementation of any language out there, but they recommend not to use or distribute it, for the reasons stated. Pretty straightforward and out in the open, I don't see any hypocrisy.

OK,OK hypocrisy is perhaps too strong a word for this case.
But why have this developer effort toward re-implementing a framework that you can't use?

[aesis05401]

he's being passive-aggressive. Mono or Portable.Net aren't a problem but the underlying language(?) is as far as RS thinks.

It would only be passive aggressive if he was *not* specifically stating the issue.

The primary problem with getting this conversation beyond this point is that certain FOSS developers and distributors examined their legal position with regards to IP involved in Mono that may be infringed by the implementation, and decided they needed to pay MS for an agreement about where they stood.

This is not the same as saying the code or language is 'owned' by Microsoft. Encumberance can come in many forms. In fact the GPL encumbers through the making public device.

[zekopeko]

The primary problem with getting this conversation beyond this point is that certain FOSS developers and distributors examined their legal position with regards to IP involved in Mono that may be infringed by the implementation, and decided they needed to pay MS for an agreement about where they stood.

i don't understand this part. who are this people/distributors and could you point me to the infringed part of the implementation?
any link(s)?

[aesis05401]

The largest who signed a licensing deal was Novell, but they were not the first, and I do not believe they deserve the beating they have taken from the community over their decision. Additionally, they received some legitimate ability to work with integrating their FOSS offerings with MS products.

The reasons they signed this deal are still unknown as MS has yet to specify what infringing aspects are present.

You may remember the press releases about all the supposed 'infringement' in the Linux kernel (235 patent infringements or something according to Ballmer). All of that FUD was related to this same brouhaha - and it is darn near impossible to get good info.

So literally, this is where the conversation stalls. Nobody knows why all the posturing and money changing hands and MS ain't talking.

So where do we go from here? Good question. One thing is certain, politics are being played to the hilt by all sides.

[zekopeko]

The largest who signed the cross-licensing deal was Novell, but they were not the first, and I do not believe they deserve the beating they have taken from the community over their decision. Additionally, they received some legitimate ability to work with integrating their FOSS offerings with MS products.

i think that the whole point of that deal (and others with linux vendors) is about patents. that is cross licensing patent.
as i said in a previous post: you can't write any useful software without stepping on a patent.


The reasons they signed this deal are still unknown as MS has yet to specify what infringing aspects are present.


To shed some light read this book review: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/making-microsoft-nicer-through-patents.ars


You may remember the press releases about all the supposed 'infringement' in the Linux kernel (235 patent infringements or something according to Ballmer). All of that FUD was related to this same brouhaha - and it is darn near impossible to get good info.


because it was complete FUD. the moment MS say what patents are infringed linux devs can fix it. look at the FAT patent and TomTom. there is already a patch that works around said patent.


So literally, this is where the conversation stalls. Certain FOSS vendors felt they needed protection from something related the manner in which something might have been implemented.


So does MS. that's why the novell deal. novell could have sued the pants of MS since they have some rather important XML patents.


So where do we go from here? Good question. One thing is certain, politics are being played to the hilt by all sides.

You ignore patents until they are pointed out. then you work around them. that's the only sane thing to do. the other one would be to stop producing any software.

[aesis05401]

You ignore patents until they are pointed out. then you work around them. that's the only sane thing to do. the other one would be to stop producing any software.

Even though I am an equally vested partner in my little development business there is no way I could ever convince my partners or my customers to eat that burrito.

Ignore patents in general, yes. Target anything that other people have had to pay to distribute? No. I don't believe for a second that the Novell settlement covers me. Why should they pay for my free ride?

The developers of Mono felt they needed additional protection, so I feel it is disingenuous to not raise the point that anyone who wants to marry that framework may also be required to pay.

Your other points I have no argument with.

[zekopeko]

Ignore patents in general, yes. Target anything that other people have had to pay to distribute? No. I don't believe for a second that the Novell settlement covers me. Why should they pay for my free ride?

OT: From the last sentence I'm guessing that you are from the US.
Yes?

Back on topic:
http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ if you haven't read it.

[directhex]

Ignore patents in general, yes. Target anything that other people have had to pay to distribute? No. I don't believe for a second that the Novell settlement covers me. Why should they pay for my free ride?

The developers of Mono felt they needed additional protection, so I feel it is disingenuous to not raise the point that anyone who wants to marry that framework may also be required to pay.

The Novell deal was not about Mono. Let me state that again - the Novell deal was not about Mono. The actual wording of which products are covered by the deal are pretty obtuse, but The word "Mono" is not included once. Mono is part of the deal as a whole - so try replacing the word "Mono" with "Kernel" for an equally "dubious" piece of code which is being "protected"

[Viva]

I'm with rmson this one.

[saulgoode]

The Novell deal was not about Mono. Let me state that again - the Novell deal was not about Mono. The actual wording of which products are covered by the deal are pretty obtuse, but The word "Mono" is not included once.

From the Joint Letter to the Open Source Community on Novell's website (http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html):

Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.

[aesis05401]

From the Joint Letter to the Open Source Community on Novell's website (http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html):

Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.

Nice.

Unfortunately, as I stated earlier (or possibly in another thread) I do not know of anywhere where they actually state what specific infringements are being covered, just that there is coverage... so this is as far as this conversation can go until there is some sort of legal challenge that further defines the issue.

I doubt as much as anyone that MS is just going to come out with a bulleted list of infringements. We are still a long way from any deb distro actually relying on Mono, though, so I am still on board around here.

[aesis05401]

OT: From the last sentence I'm guessing that you are from the US.
Yes?

Back on topic:
http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ if you haven't read it.

*snip* n/m

[TheBuzzSaw]

C++ is better anyway.

[Kazade]

I just generally don't see the point in taking the risk... Mono as a means to run Windows developed .NET applications - fine. Developing Mono applications when you have Vala, Java, Python, Ruby, C, C++, D and god knows what else to chose from just seems crazy. Why risk it? I mean, best case scenario, MS doesn't sue, but you will always be behind on features of the "official" .NET. Worst case scenario, Mono gets sued to oblivion, is pulled from the distros, your application dies. Just doesn't make sense to me. Use something else.

Just my 2p.

[cb951303]

So in other word's Mono is ok and C# is not.
Does he suggest to keep developing Mono but not to use it?

[cb951303]

I just generally don't see the point in taking the risk... Mono as a means to run Windows developed .NET applications - fine. Developing Mono applications when you have Vala, Java, Python, Ruby, C, C++, D and god knows what else to chose from just seems crazy. Why risk it?

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/

[k2t0f12d]

If mono is threatened with a specific patent claim, mono could probably just work around it( and at worst case, people would have to make some tiny changes to their C# apps to make them compatible again.). It's the same with all software basically (until software patents hopefully becomes abolished).

I suppose RMS could be right though, but I do not believe it.Its risk management, nothing more nothing less. If patent aggression was successful against C# implementations like Mono, it could render any number of its integral components unusable. Even if a work around like you suggested could rectify the problem, why take any risk if programs implemented in C# could just as easily be written in languages with prior art already established on the GNU+Linux platform? Even worse, why would you think that rewriting programs implemented in C# is an acceptable solution for a patent attack, when they could be written in another language just once? It's probably true that any program can be the target of a patent attack, but rarely all of the programs written in the same language. Until its proven that Mono is safe from litigation, GNU+Linux wouldn't lose a thing by keeping Mono strictly as an optional package rather then a requirement.

Maybe, I do not agree with all of his views though (for instance this one regarding mono)
Many people dislike the GPL and non-permissive licenses in general, including myself.Interesting. I believe you, but that's not a reason. If you want to have a debate about it, you need to provide a thesis for why you don't like copyleft.

For example, I don't use non-copyleft licenses because they create liability for enterprise that would otherwise support free software, and because they do not harness the optimum level of invention from the commons.

Just look at the large amounts of software available under permissive licenses (MIT, BSD or others).Part of the problem with non-copyleft licensing is its tendency to fork, creating redundant invention.

Open source software is nice, but I would consider someone who considers it to be *UNETHICAL* to touch any proprietary software to be, yes, somewhat of an extremist.Fortunately for us, the most vocal critic against proprietary software cites reasons for his criticisms. Just saying an idea is extreme doesn't give any rational explanation why anyone should or shouldn't be credulous. If you think proprietary software isn't unethical, give us a thesis that demonstrates why.

For example, Proprietary software is unethical because it gives a developer power over the users that no one should have.

[directhex]

From the Joint Letter to the Open Source Community on Novell's website (http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/openletter.html):

Under the patent agreement, customers will receive coverage for Mono, Samba, and OpenOffice as well as .NET and Windows Server.

Not on Microsoft's list - which is presumably the one that matters. Microsoft essentially have an "exclude" list, not an include list, and Mono isn't mentioned.

[aesis05401]

Not on Microsoft's list - which is presumably the one that matters. Microsoft essentially have an "exclude" list, not an include list, and Mono isn't mentioned.

Then someone needs to get on the phone with Miguel and tell him he is off the hook.

He has been taking a pounding near and far for a long time now and it ain't because of the gnome design model. If MS doesn't care about Mono then de Icaza and his crew ruined their reps for nothing by being associated with that statement by Novell.

[saulgoode]

Not on Microsoft's list - which is presumably the one that matters. Microsoft essentially have an "exclude" list, not an include list, and Mono isn't mentioned.
The citation I provided is a "joint" letter from both Novell and Microsoft. The exact same announcement (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/open_letter.mspx) is also presented by Microsoft on their own website. (I initially linked to Novell's site because I considered that to be the opinion that mattered.)

[directhex]

The citation I provided is a "joint" letter from both Novell and Microsoft. The exact same announcement (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/open_letter.mspx) is also presented by Microsoft on their own website. (I initially linked to Novell's site because I considered that to be the opinion that mattered.)

Where is it mentioned in http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx though? As in the actual agreement, not the fluffy-wording letter to go with it?

[aesis05401]

Where is it mentioned in http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/patent_agreement.mspx though? As in the actual agreement, not the fluffy-wording letter to go with it?

The fluffy letter? The one where they spell everything out in plain English with quotes like:

"What it really means is that customers deploying technologies from Novell and Microsoft no longer have to fear about possible lawsuits or potential patent infringement from either company."

...

And then follow that with a section *entitled*: "Mono, OpenOffice and Samba" wherein they state that Novell customers are covered for patents included in Mono - see quote posted by another poster earlier in this thread.

This is not a fluffy letter. If MS tried legal step one against Novell this letter would be defense 'Evidence A.'

I'm sorry directhex, but if you read my other posts you will see I am not advocating for Mono removal or suggesting that anyone currently in development stop using Mono. I am pointing out that every indication points to undefined encumbrance on the implemented IP.

Edit: I just noticed this at the bottom of the letter: "This is a watershed moment for Linux. It fundamentally changes the rules of the game."

This is all I'm saying - we don't know the actual IP details of the agreement - they changed the game and didn't tell us the rules. That is the entire argument against Mono in a nutshell. No one knows the rules but MS and possibly Novell.

[directhex]

The fluffy letter? The one where they spell everything out in plain English with quotes like:

"What it really means is that customers deploying technologies from Novell and Microsoft no longer have to fear about possible lawsuits or potential patent infringement from either company."

...

And then follow that with a section *entitled*: "Mono, OpenOffice and Samba" wherein they state that Novell customers are covered for patents included in Mono - see quote posted by another poster earlier in this thread.

This is not a fluffy letter. If MS tried legal step one against Novell this letter would be defense 'Evidence A.'

I'm sorry directhex, but if you read my other posts you will see I am not advocating for Mono removal or suggesting that anyone currently in development stop using Mono. I am pointing out that every indication points to undefined encumbrance on the implemented IP.

But not a word about the aforementioned OOo and Samba, right?

[aesis05401]

But not a word about the aforementioned OOo and Samba, right?

Yes, and I am glad we are back into a conversation that can get us somewhere.

Mono is the only one of the three that Novell actually owns copyright on. If you check the Mono licensing FAQ you will see that Novell requires copyright assignment for donated code:http://mono-project.com/License.

Sun does (did?) the same for OO, and most FOSS projects of any size require copyright transfer to the project maintainers. Correct me if I am wrong, and I don't know who might donate to samba, but it is a stand alone organization in my understanding.

So there is a legitimate legal difference between these things. Now some people will tell you that Novell could simply fork future versions of the framework back to proprietary and take their patent protection with them, but my message isn't that radical. My message is simply that we don't know what is going on.

Either way, Mono is the only one of the three that Novell actually 'controls.'

Edit: I know this is emotional for some people, but if anyone is going to post that you can't close future versions of an FOSS project on which you own copyright, please do some research before flaming. Novell can do this so long as they don't attempt to deprive the community of the existing FOSS licensed versions. This would leave developers with two choices, pay Novell for the proprietary version, or pay MS for a license to the existing FOSS versions (yes, the one you are using today) the same way Novell did when they signed their protection agreement. Sounds insane, but it is legal in America if Mono is implemented in a way that includes encumbered IP. This is what people are afraid of.

Hopefully we can work productively within the deb tree to get some clarifications on Mono in the near future.

[entr3p]

Hey. Just incase anyone else is looking for a way to do this then I recommend to check out this easy guide:

How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu (http://www.learningubuntu.com/articles/how-completely-remove-mono-ubuntu)

[MountainX]

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25954/1231/

RMS says Debian Mono decision 'risky' http://www.itwire.com/images/M_images/emailButton.png (http://www.itwire.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=25954&itemid=1231) by Sam Varghese Sunday, 28 June 2009 ! (http://www.informationmadness.com/cms)

The founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Matthew Stallman, has termed Debian's decision to include Mono as part of its default desktop task a move that "leads the community in a risky direction."


In a short statement (http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono) published on the FSF site, Stallman, who launched the GNU Project in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software, slammed Debian's move which was taken "for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#."

He said: "It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use."

The Debian GNU/Linux project has plans (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25683/1090/) to include Tomboy, a note-taking application in its next release, Squeeze. There has been no discussion about it on any of the regular mailing lists for Debian developers; the decision (http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/meta-gnome2/debian/control?view=log#rev20303) was made by a lone developer who packages the GNOME desktop for the distribution.

A port of Tomboy known as Gnote was released recently

Stallman said: "The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents.

"This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger."

He said that implementing C# itself was not objectionable. "Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used."

Red Hat's community Linux distribution, Fedora, recently decided (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25469/1154/) to throw out Mono altogether from its default install, and replaced Tomboy with Gnote.

While pro-Mono zealots often claim that it is possible to obtain a royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence for the use of Microsoft patents which may be part of Mono, in reality, it is extremely difficult to even find out (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/) how one can do so.

What one finds is things like this statement (http://www.oreillynet.com/databases/blog/2004/03/mono_developer_meeting.html) from 2004: "Importantly, Miguel (de Icaza, the Novell vice-president who started the Mono project) also said that Ximian had a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP stating that they would offer *royalty-free* RAND licensing to the ECMA-submitted components of .NET."

Of course, nobody else has ever been shown that letter. One doubts that anybody ever will get to see it, either. One doubts if it even exists.

[t4thfavor]

lol someone ese reads /. Come on, its just software, and it really doesn't infringe on any IP. All Microsoft has on it is the ability to change API's at will. Take it or eave it, its the wave of the future.

[entr3p]

lol someone ese reads /. Come on, its just software, and it really doesn't infringe on any IP. All Microsoft has on it is the ability to change API's at will. Take it or eave it, its the wave of the future.

I don't really agree that "it's the wave of the future" as I find Vala better than Mono. Also in my opinion it's too slow to even reach the future.

[t4thfavor]

What i meant by that is that CLR languages are the wave of the future, it matters not which one wins, only that we best get comfortable with them as they are here to stay, at least for a while.

Oh, and if your going to quote me at least spell it right, or wrong whichever the case may be.

[MountainX]

What i meant by that is that CLR languages are the wave of the future, it matters not which one wins, only that we best get comfortable with them as they are here to stay, at least for a while.

Oh, and if your going to quote me at least spell it right, or wrong whichever the case may be.

I just looked up Vala and from what I see it does not appear to be a CLR language. For me, that is a positive.

I would prefer a future with programming languages that bring modern features without imposing the additional runtime requirements of the CLR. Microsoft likes to make thing more complex than they need to be. There are more elegant (and more simple) ways to solve what the CLR attempts to solve, IMO.

[jimv]

Bleh, not a Mono argument again. It really boils down to rational people vs people who see MS as some sort of demonic monster.

[blackxored]

Ok.
More on the same topic.
Now that Stallman has spoken: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono, let me speak myself.
I'm not agree with risking any free linux distribution because of size. That's mostly why mono is included by default in ubuntu and was accepted in debian. There's no way we couldn't find alternatives to Tomboy, and FSpot ( eyes closed: gThumb, Gnote), so why giving even the possibility we all know about. Free software is about choice, and some choices are better, others are riskier, and then finally others are safer. People have even (extremely IMHO) left ubuntu because of the decision of mono, we can't afford that.

+1 for removing mono, tomboy and fspot.

[paul_be]

I think jumping ship on mono all at once is a bad idea. It is better to let further development mono app replacements occur. Many people dont use linux due to "how hard it is to use", and making people use less developed/user friendly apps is worse than relying on mono. They best solution should be slowly replace mono apps, not strip mono out right now like fedora.
-my two cents

[HappyFeet]

How is mono contributing to the downfall of mankind? Personally, I think there are more important things in this world to worry about.

[kerry_s]

can someone put the output of> dpkg -l | grep mono
i would like to see how much is installed. i don't have any on mine, but mines built from the base up & i'm using xfce4.

[Bios Element]

can someone put the output of> dpkg -l | grep mono
i would like to see how much is installed. i don't have any on mine, but mines built from the base up & i'm using xfce4.

dpkg -l | grep mono
ii libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 0.4-3 GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
ii libmono-addins0.2-cil 0.4-3 addin framework for extensible CLI applicati
ii libmono-cairo2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Cairo library
ii libmono-corlib2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (2.0)
ii libmono-data-tds2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data Library
ii libmono-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-getoptions2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (2.0)
ii libmono-i18n2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-posix2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (2.0)
ii libmono-security2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sqlite2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Sqlite library
ii libmono-system-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data Library
ii libmono-system-web2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web Library
ii libmono-system2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-zeroconf1.0-cil 0.7.6-1ubuntu1 CLI library for multicast DNS service discov
ii libmono0 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT
ii libmono2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (2.0)
ii mono-2.0-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-2.0-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime (2.0)
ii mono-common 2.0.1-4 common files for Mono
ii mono-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-jit 2.0.1-4 fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
ii mono-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime

[Joeb454]

Just to add a 2nd list to that :)

:~$ dpkg -l | grep mono

ii libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 0.4-3 GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
ii libmono-addins0.2-cil 0.4-3 addin framework for extensible CLI applicati
ii libmono-cairo2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Cairo library
ii libmono-corlib1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (1.0)
ii libmono-corlib2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (2.0)
ii libmono-data-tds1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data library
ii libmono-data-tds2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data Library
ii libmono-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-dev 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT - Development fil
ii libmono-getoptions1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (1.0)
ii libmono-getoptions2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (2.0)
ii libmono-i18n1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-i18n2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-peapi2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono PEAPI library
ii libmono-posix1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (1.0)
ii libmono-posix2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (2.0)
ii libmono-relaxng1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Relaxng library
ii libmono-security1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-security2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sqlite2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Sqlite library
ii libmono-system-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data library
ii libmono-system-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data Library
ii libmono-system-runtime1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Runtime library
ii libmono-system-web1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web library
ii libmono-system-web2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web Library
ii libmono-system1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-system2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-zeroconf1.0-cil 0.7.6-1ubuntu1 CLI library for multicast DNS service discov
ii libmono0 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT
ii libmono1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (1.0)
ii libmono2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (2.0)
ii mono-2.0-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools for CLI 2.0
ii mono-2.0-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-2.0-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime (2.0)
ii mono-common 2.0.1-4 common files for Mono
ii mono-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools
ii mono-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-gmcs 2.0.1-4 Mono C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 compiler for CLI 2.0
ii mono-jit 2.0.1-4 fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
ii mono-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime
ii mono-utils 2.0.1-4 Mono utilities
ii monodoc-base 2.0-2ubuntu2 shared MonoDoc binaries

[sloggerkhan]

Outside of mono vs no mono, I would love for gthumb to be default and fspot to be gone.

[directhex]

Outside of mono vs no mono, I would love for gthumb to be default and fspot to be gone.

Unlikely to happen as long as effort is wasted on bitching and moaning rather than making it possible.

Ubuntu has released 6 versions with F-Spot by default. Many users have spent hours tagging their photos with the default photo manager. Any F-Spot replacement would need to adequately import their data from existing F-Spot users to be considered.

[HoldSteady]

Ok.
More on the same topic.
Now that Stallman has spoken: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono, let me speak myself.
I'm not agree with risking any free linux distribution because of size. That's mostly why mono is included by default in ubuntu and was accepted in debian. There's no way we couldn't find alternatives to Tomboy, and FSpot ( eyes closed: gThumb, Gnote), so why giving even the possibility we all know about. Free software is about choice, and some choices are better, others are riskier, and then finally others are safer. People have even (extremely IMHO) left ubuntu because of the decision of mono, we can't afford that.

+1 for removing mono, tomboy and fspot.
Somewhere around 54 MB of space taken up by trojan horse cruft for three hardly critical apps.

+2 for MonoNoNo http://tim.thechases.com/mononono/

[cariboo907]

Moved to Recurring Discussions. This has nothing to do with Testimonials & Experiences

[directhex]

+2 for MonoNoNo http://tim.thechases.com/mononono/

Which fails to work properly, and won't work at all on Karmic

[AICollector]

Right, I'm here today, ladies and gentlemen, to say something;

I am sick and tired of hearing about Mono.

I'm the end user, you know? The sorta guy that apparently shouldn't be using Linux (according to some Windows fanboys I know) because I've never needed any more then two terminal commands?

Now, here's my problem. I've just been looking at a 'discussion' on the Ubuntu devs mailing list. In it was (and I do not say this lightly) a total loon (personal opinion, of course) who serves no other purposes other then to waste people's time and prove to me that there are still people out there who do not think logically. They might as well tell me that Red Hat is controlled by the devil.


Do I consider Mono a threat?

No. Here's why;

Mono is a fascinating system, from it we've had many, MANY good applications. Do I think it could pose a risk? Well, Microsoft has never been one to play nice with FOSS, so I imagine that, at the very least, they'll try and think about it's potential uses against us. My own concern is that Ubuntu and other distros may some day come up with a system critical application that could mean the demise of said distros should Microsoft pull a fast one. I would hope people have enough sense to try and avoid that, but that isnt happening now.

Do I use Mono apps?

No again! And again, here's why;

Tomboy is of no use to me, Banshee was good, but heavy on resources. (I have it on my system, but only because it's the only app I've found that can connect to my iPod) GNOME-DO could do with a bit more tweaking before it earned it's place on my desktop (like getting that very nice Docky to sit on the side, instead of the bottom) I switched to Kubuntu.(Surprisingly stable, by the way, after you install WICD, disable desktop effects and get Synaptic) That, as well as me not really caring for resource heavy apps

What I think Ubuntu should do;

If GNOME can be said to do only one thing well, it's stability. However, having tested a Ubuntu system loaded with Mono apps, I can tell you it brings the system to it's knees. I would ask that either Mono be not installed by default (for the simple reason that apps created in it are fairly resource heavy even on modern computers, let alone a four year old one.) Or that a smaller 'lite' version of Ubuntu is created for those older PC's with less in the way of meat, and more in the way of dust.


So, in short; if we become heavily Dependant on Mono, I think we're in a bad way because that can leave us vulnerable (though I am not saying we will be attacked, I am simply stating it as a minute possibility with a high chance of failure if they do) . I do not think, however, that it's inclusion means the death of it. My only concern is that my older computers may not be able to run 9.10 for the simple reason that it's too heavy.

That is all.


PS:Boycott-novell made some interesting accusations, I'd fully understand if the admins just censored out every rant about how horrible Mono is. I would, however, rather like to know why this one was censored (if it ever is)

[tubezninja]

This is probably the most realistic post I've seen on here regarding mono.

[starcraft.man]

3....2....1.... blast off!

I mean BOOOM!!!

[Gizenshya]

what is mono?

I take it he's not talking about the disease...

[Skripka]

3....2....1.... blast off!

I mean BOOOM!!!

Ready.

Set.



Recurring Discussions!

[dragos240]

what is mono?

I take it he's not talking about the disease...


It's a developing system for unix and unix-like systems for programing and porting programs in C sharp.

[Sealbhach]

It's controversial because it was created by Microsoft, afaik. I don't know what claims they have to it right now though.

.

[magmon]

Meh, I dont see it as a problem even if they say we cant use it. They can take my banshee, but they cant take my ubuntu!

[MountainX]

Bleh, not a Mono argument again. It really boils down to rational people vs people who see MS as some sort of demonic monster.

I consider the 2nd type of person to be very observant of Microsoft's actual demonic behavior as well as knowledgeable of their proven criminal behavior. Those who do not recognize this pattern may be irrational or in denial because the facts are public record.

[jonian_g]

I also think that we shouldn't use mono apps because they are heavy in resources and because there could be a potentional problem with MS patents.

I don't use any mono apps. I have no use for tomboy, I don't need F-spot, neither gnome-do and I don't like banshee (I prefer Listen).

The least ubuntu can do for users that don't want mono is make the ubuntu-desktop metapackage non dependant on those apps to avoid problems during upgrades.

[zekopeko]

Right, I'm here today, ladies and gentlemen, to say something;

I am sick and tired of hearing about Mono.

I'm the end user, you know? The sorta guy that apparently shouldn't be using Linux (according to some Windows fanboys I know) because I've never needed any more then two terminal commands?

Now, here's my problem. I've just been looking at a 'discussion' on the Ubuntu devs mailing list. In it was (and I do not say this lightly) a total loon (personal opinion, of course) who serves no other purposes other then to waste people's time and prove to me that there are still people out there who do not think logically. They might as well tell me that Red Hat is controlled by the devil.


agreed


Do I consider Mono a threat?

No. Here's why;

Mono is a fascinating system, from it we've had many, MANY good applications. Do I think it could pose a risk? Well, Microsoft has never been one to play nice with FOSS, so I imagine that, at the very least, they'll try and think about it's potential uses against us. My own concern is that Ubuntu and other distros may some day come up with a system critical application that could mean the demise of said distros should Microsoft pull a fast one. I would hope people have enough sense to try and avoid that, but that isnt happening now.


MS has been playing nicely with FLOSS for quite some time. i think that they will move toward a more open model of business since FLOSS dramatically boosts productivity and lowers costs of development.



Do I use Mono apps?

No again! And again, here's why;

Tomboy is of no use to me, Banshee was good, but heavy on resources. (I have it on my system, but only because it's the only app I've found that can connect to my iPod) GNOME-DO could do with a bit more tweaking before it earned it's place on my desktop (like getting that very nice Docky to sit on the side, instead of the bottom) I switched to Kubuntu.(Surprisingly stable, by the way, after you install WICD, disable desktop effects and get Synaptic) That, as well as me not really caring for resource heavy apps

what are your machine specs? i use 9.04 on an Asus 1000HG and Banshee is working without a problem performance-wise.
Gnome-do is also working nicely in every mode except docky which should use some speed tweaks (the zoom functionality to be precise)



What I think Ubuntu should do;

If GNOME can be said to do only one thing well, it's stability. However, having tested a Ubuntu system loaded with Mono apps, I can tell you it brings the system to it's knees. I would ask that either Mono be not installed by default (for the simple reason that apps created in it are fairly resource heavy even on modern computers, let alone a four year old one.) Or that a smaller 'lite' version of Ubuntu is created for those older PC's with less in the way of meat, and more in the way of dust.


Same as above. I don't have a problem running mono apps on a weakly netbook for the most part.


So, in short; if we become heavily Dependant on Mono, I think we're in a bad way because that can leave us vulnerable (though I am not saying we will be attacked, I am simply stating it as a minute possibility with a high chance of failure if they do) . I do not think, however, that it's inclusion means the death of it. My only concern is that my older computers may not be able to run 9.10 for the simple reason that it's too heavy.

That is all.
Lame reasoning is lame. Mono is under the protection of the OIN network. MS would be crazy to start a "thermonuclear" patent war.
The kernel is probably far more alluring target for MS since it can break a lot of stuff. Not to mention that it has a larger code base to attack.


PS:Boycott-novell made some interesting accusations, I'd fully understand if the admins just censored out every rant about how horrible Mono is. I would, however, rather like to know why this one was censored (if it ever is)

BN is a cesspool for intelligent thought and debate. Try to avoid it.

[zekopeko]

It's controversial because it was created by Microsoft, afaik. I don't know what claims they have to it right now though.

.

You know wrong. Mono is a free software implementation of C#, a standardized computer language that took concepts from Sun's Java and made them better or not suck so much. It also sports a collection of libraries for developing applications.

[monsterstack]

MS has been playing nicely with FLOSS for quite some time. i think that they will move toward a more open model of business since FLOSS dramatically boosts productivity and lowers costs of development.

Hahaha.

[GCFreak]

You know wrong. Mono is a free software implementation of C#, a standardized computer language that took concepts from Sun's Java and made them better or not suck so much. It also sports a collection of libraries for developing applications.

I'd hardly call C# standardised (even though it is ECMA and ISO standards, but still) for the simple fact is that Microsoft doesn't do much in the way of standardisation with all the other implementations other than its own. C#, a language designed by Microsoft, for Microsoft, screwing everyone who tries to help them make it open, and better.

EDIT: If C# WAS a proper standard, like everything else non-Microsoft is, we would not have these silly, unnecessary legal issues in the first place.

[cariboo907]

I'm getting a little bit tired of open source advocates trying to limit my freedom of choice. Using a Linux distribution is all about freedom of choice, If I choose to use a mono based application, it should be up to me, not what someone thinks may be a problem some time down the road. If we get rid of mono, maybe we should also get rid of wine, as some day there may be a patent infringement lawsuit against it too.

[directhex]

I'm getting a little bit tired of open source advocates trying to limit my freedom of choice. Using a Linux distribution is all about freedom of choice, If I choose to use a mono based application, it should be up to me, not what someone thinks may be a problem some time down the road. If we get rid of mono, maybe we should also get rid of wine, as some day there may be a patent infringement lawsuit against it too.

All software is Free, but some is more Free than others

[Bigtime_Scrub]

can someone put the output of> dpkg -l | grep mono
i would like to see how much is installed. i don't have any on mine, but mines built from the base up & i'm using xfce4.



Here you go.

gary@gary-laptop:~$ dpkg -l | grep mono
ii libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 0.4-3 GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
ii libmono-addins0.2-cil 0.4-3 addin framework for extensible CLI applicati
ii libmono-cairo2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Cairo library
ii libmono-corlib2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (2.0)
ii libmono-data-tds2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data Library
ii libmono-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-getoptions2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (2.0)
ii libmono-i18n2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-posix2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (2.0)
ii libmono-security2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sqlite2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Sqlite library
ii libmono-system-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data Library
ii libmono-system-web2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web Library
ii libmono-system2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (2.0)
ii libmono0 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT
ii libmono2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (2.0)
ii mono-2.0-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-2.0-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime (2.0)
ii mono-common 2.0.1-4 common files for Mono
ii mono-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-jit 2.0.1-4 fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
ii mono-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime
gary@gary-laptop:~$

[Grant A.]

To everyone bitching about Mono, please read this very insightful essay on Mono about why it does not pose a threat, and why it does not "suck". (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/)

[k2t0f12d]

I'm getting a little bit tired of open source advocates trying to limit my freedom of choice.I'm getting a little bit tired of reading one dimensional posts blaming free software advocates for steal'n ur apps. Stallman's advice makes sense. By all means, keep up development on free implementations of NET, but keep it on the sidelines until its legality is certain. For all the BS that gets tossed around here, one thing staff is supposed to do is keep the forum free of stuff that could be illegal. Now I would have thought that the possibility that NET implementation might not be legal to reproduce is something you would be sensitive to. Staff never shut up about legality when derailing threads about copyright reform, but let free software advocates mention caution and suddenly its the other way around.

Using a Linux distribution is all about freedom of choice, If I choose to use a mono based application, it should be up to me, not what someone thinks may be a problem some time down the road.Freedom is why Stallman shared his advice with you to consider, so you can make your own choice, instead of sneaking onto your computer and deleting Mono without your permission. Name a single program for me that free software ever took away from you, or quit your whining.

If we get rid of mono, maybe we should also get rid of wine, as some day there may be a patent infringement lawsuit against it too.Demagoguery. WINE cannot be integrated into a GNU+Linux platform in a compromising way because the executables it supports are not native. If WINE goes, GNU+Linux is left exactly the same, intact. Is WINE installed on Ubuntu by default with some standard w32 apps? Didn't think so. Neither should Mono until its legality is fully confirmed. Full stop.

[Dragonbite]

Bleh, not a Mono argument again. It really boils down to rational people vs people who see MS as some sort of demonic monster.

I consider the 2nd type of person to be very observant of Microsoft's actual demonic behavior as well as knowledgeable of their proven criminal behavior. Those who do not recognize this pattern may be irrational or in denial because the facts are public record.

Yup.. looks like another Mono argument again.

[3rdalbum]

If it's dangerous to use Mono because of the possibility of a submarine patent, or the possibility that Microsoft will object to using a language that they invented: Why do people still use Wine? That *reimplements* the Win32 API which has got to be more risky than anything Mono is doing. Microsoft don't even claim to be able to provide anyone with a fair license to implement w32.

[Bios Element]

I'm getting a little bit tired of reading one dimensional posts blaming free software advocates for steal'n ur apps. Stallman's advice makes sense. By all means, keep up development on free implementations of NET, but keep it on the sidelines until its legality is certain. For all the BS that gets tossed around here, one thing staff is supposed to do is keep the forum free of stuff that could be illegal. Now I would have thought that the possibility that NET implementation might not be legal to reproduce is something you would be sensitive to. Staff never shut up about legality when derailing threads about copyright reform, but let free software advocates mention caution and suddenly its the other way around.

Freedom is why Stallman shared his advice with you to consider, so you can make your own choice, instead of sneaking onto your computer and deleting Mono without your permission. Name a single program for me that free software ever took away from you, or quit your whining.

Demagoguery. WINE cannot be integrated into a GNU+Linux platform in a compromising way because the executables it supports are not native. If WINE goes, GNU+Linux is left exactly the same, intact. Is WINE installed on Ubuntu by default with some standard w32 apps? Didn't think so. Neither should Mono until its legality is fully confirmed. Full stop.

Why don't you just purge mono and move on with your life rather then waste your time trying to impose your opinion on everyone else? Anyway, Microsoft claims Linux is illegal too and has yet to prove it. Maybe we should just shutdown until Linux is Microsoft Certified as well?

[jonian_g]

To everyone bitching about Mono, please read this very insightful essay on Mono about why it does not pose a threat, and why it does not "suck". (http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/)

A totaly unbiased article by Jo Shields, a mono packager from debian. This guy insults the gnote author in every blog I have come across. He is a nono defender and I can not believe him. He even acuses people in that article without providing links.

[directhex]

A totaly unbiased article by Jo Shields, a mono packager from debian. This guy insults the gnote author in every blog I have come across. He is a nono defender and I can not believe him. He even acuses people in that article without providing links.

Boycott Novell commenters calling for death:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/#comment-65907
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/21/death-by-microsoft-windows/#comment-58764
(not an exhaustive list - cannot be bothered to search for site:boycottnovell.com $METHOD_OF_DEATH for every imaginable killing strategy)

Third parties claiming (with evidence) affiliation with Boycott Novell trying to have people fired for not agreeing with them:
http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html

Boycott Novell commenters comparing Mono to cancer:
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/05/04/re-spinning-famous-quotes-linux-and-cancer/

Unrepentant attacks against pretty much anyone:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/29/jimmi-hugh-wikipedia-censorship-on-ms/

Any other points you'd like to raise? Oh, and since you asked, the reason for the lack of hyperlinks was a conscious decision to avoid possibly confusing layout in the GPG-signed plain text of the original - that and not wanting to spend more than the three hours I already did.

[jonian_g]

Boycott Novell commenters calling for death:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/#comment-65907
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/21/death-by-microsoft-windows/#comment-58764
(not an exhaustive list - cannot be bothered to search for site:boycottnovell.com $METHOD_OF_DEATH for every imaginable killing strategy)

Third parties claiming (with evidence) affiliation with Boycott Novell trying to have people fired for not agreeing with them:
http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-zeal-becomes-zealotry-tawdry-tale.html

Boycott Novell commenters comparing Mono to cancer:
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/05/04/re-spinning-famous-quotes-linux-and-cancer/

Unrepentant attacks against pretty much anyone:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/12/29/jimmi-hugh-wikipedia-censorship-on-ms/

Any other points you'd like to raise? Oh, and since you asked, the reason for the lack of hyperlinks was a conscious decision to avoid possibly confusing layout in the GPG-signed plain text of the original - that and not wanting to spend more than the three hours I already did.

Should I assume you are Jo Shields?

I never said I agree with boycott novel (I have read only their articles linked at linuxinsider and lxer).

My point is that their opinions are biased and so are Jo Shields. The words that Jo Shields used against the gnote author don't make him any better than boycott novel.

I don't give a sh*t about mono since I don't use any mono apps. Ubuntu/Debian can do what they want with mono. If someone disagrees, then he should switch to fedora or any other mono-free distro.

And, by the way, I don't understand your agression against me.

[MountainX]

Yup.. looks like another Mono argument again.

Well, this has become a current news item due to the Debian decision regarding Mono. Therefore, it is not just a rehash of an old discussion.

I was not aware of the mono issues previously. After reading a bit, the issues seem totally different from Wine. I can't repeat all the details. But Microsoft's strategy is to get the open source community to write new applications on Microsoft's platforms. This is a way to undermine Linux.

With Wine, we bring Windows apps into the Linux world. But with Mono, we end up writing new apps that target a platform technology designed and invented by Microsoft. With Wine, the development effort goes into the tool itself. If Wine were to disappear (which I do not think is a risk), no Linux-targeted open source apps would be affected.

With Mono, new development effort goes into the tool as well as new applications. If Mono becomes unavailable under a free license, and if all the best new apps over several years have been targeted to Mono, users of Linux will suffer a big setback and they will have to invest a lot of time and effort (and money) to port all those apps so they will run without Mono. Since we can develop such new apps now without Mono, and they can probably be developed just as easily without Mono, why subject the community to the risk? Even worse, why embrace a technology MS created? Sure, the CLR seems cool. Sure, writing C# GUI code is really easy compared to C or C++. But once one has used these technologies long enough for the cool factor to wear off, it becomes more obvious that the problems these technologies are designed to solve can be solved more elegantly with less complex approaches (e.g., using the Unix philosophy).

Linux is built on the Unix philosophy. Mono seems to undermine that foundation of Linux.

Microsoft sees the .NET framework as the future of its operating system. Almost every Windows API is going to be moved to .NET. The .NET Framework is becoming the operating system. Microsoft would love to see Mono become entrenched in Linux. Mono could be a trojan horse in my mind.

[eragon100]

edward@alchemy-lab:~$ dpkg -l | grep mono
ii libmono-accessibility2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Accessibility library
ii libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 0.4-3 GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
ii libmono-addins0.2-cil 0.4-3 addin framework for extensible CLI applications/libraries
ii libmono-cairo2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Cairo library
ii libmono-corlib1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (1.0)
ii libmono-corlib2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (2.0)
ii libmono-data-tds1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data library
ii libmono-data-tds2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data Library
ii libmono-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-dev 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT - Development files
ii libmono-getoptions1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (1.0)
ii libmono-getoptions2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (2.0)
ii libmono-i18n1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-i18n2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-peapi2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono PEAPI library
ii libmono-posix1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (1.0)
ii libmono-posix2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (2.0)
ii libmono-relaxng1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Relaxng library
ii libmono-security1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-security2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sqlite2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Sqlite library
ii libmono-system-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data library
ii libmono-system-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data Library
ii libmono-system-runtime1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Runtime library
ii libmono-system-runtime2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Runtime Library
ii libmono-system-web1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web library
ii libmono-system-web2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web Library
ii libmono-system1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-system2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-webbrowser0.5-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Web Browser library
ii libmono-winforms2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Windows.Forms library
ii libmono-zeroconf1.0-cil 0.7.6-1ubuntu1 CLI library for multicast DNS service discovery
ii libmono0 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT
ii libmono1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (1.0)
ii libmono2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (2.0)
ii mono-2.0-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools for CLI 2.0
ii mono-2.0-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-2.0-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime (2.0)
ii mono-common 2.0.1-4 common files for Mono
ii mono-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools
ii mono-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-gmcs 2.0.1-4 Mono C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 compiler for CLI 2.0
ii mono-jit 2.0.1-4 fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
ii mono-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime
ii mono-utils 2.0.1-4 Mono utilities
ii monodevelop 2.0+dfsg-2ubuntu1 Development Environment for GNOME
ii monodoc-base 2.0-2ubuntu2 shared MonoDoc binaries
ii monodoc-manual 2.0-2ubuntu2 compiled XML documentation from the Mono project
edward@alchemy-lab:~$

I use f-spot for photos and banshee for playing music and videos. I don't care if it uses mono or not, I simply like those apps so I use them. Period. If I would switch to another photo manager, it would be picasa, which is even open-source and is in fact a windows app bundled with wine. I don't care. It works, it's pleasant to use, and it doesn't cost money. Period. End of story. I also use the Nvidia propietary driver, to play games, a lot of which are commercial. I even pay for these games. Why? Because I have fun playing them. I have every non-free coded installed on my system. Why? Because I like to watch a lot of anime, and fansubs are usually in non-free formats. I have fun watching them, so I do.

By the way, I also use opera as my default web browser, and I like to see nice sights in google earth too. I do use the open-source evince instead of adobe reader, but only because I like it better. It loads documents faster. If the speed advantage would have been the other way around, I would use adobe reader without giving it a second tought.

Keep in mind that I am going to study computer science, so it's not like I don't know what free software is about. I. just. don't. care.

Have a nice day everyone and could you people please stop whining about what other users should and should not run on their computers, because of some stupid "moral issues"? Thanks. Some people just want to get the most out of their €700,- machines.

[RiceMonster]

I use f-spot for photos and banshee for playing music and videos. I don't care if it uses mono or not, I simply like those apps so I use them. Period. If I would switch to another photo manager, it would be picasa, which is even open-source and is in fact a windows app bundled with wine. I don't care. It works, it's pleasant to use, and it doesn't cost money. Period. End of story. I also use the Nvidia propietary driver, to play games, a lot of which are commercial. I even pay for these games. Why? Because I have fun playing them. I have every non-free coded installed on my system. Why? Because I like to watch a lot of anime, and fansubs are usually in non-free formats. I have fun watching them, so I do.

By the way, I also use opera as my default web browser, and I like to see nice sights in google earth too. I do use the open-source evince instead of adobe reader, but only because I like it better. It loads documents faster. If the speed advantage would have been the other way around, I would use adobe reader without giving it a second tought.

Keep in mind that I am going to study computer science, so it's not like I don't know what free software is about. I. just. don't. care.

Have a nice day everyone and could you people please stop whining about what other users should and should not run on their computers, because of some stupid "moral issues"? Thanks. Some people just want to get the most out of their €700,- machines.

I could not agree more. Such a simple concept that some people just cannot grasp.

[directhex]

My point is that their opinions are biased and so are Jo Shields.

I think I covered that in the signature on the original post.

The words that Jo Shields used against the gnote author don't make him any better than boycott novel.

Sorry, but

Claiming your line-for-line port of someone else's app is 100% your own work
Telling people you don't care if your app writes incompatible notes as you wish to encourage lock-in
Relicensing in a 1-way way, to ensure none of your code can move back to the parent project


These are all, especially when taken together, **** moves. I said at the time that Gnote was impressive work (shame about the current note-corrupting bug in 0.5), but that doesn't excuse behaving like an ***. There are plenty of talented Free Software people who behave that way - say, Schilling or Drepper. If Hub was interested in writing a *friendly* fork of Tomboy, then the alternative behaviour would have been to

Contact Tomboy upstream, and request that they clarify copyright holders of all un-headered files, to ensure due credit is given
Consider any incompatibilities in written notes a critical flaw, especially when claiming to be compatible on your website (rather than blaming Tomboy for somehow not reading its own notes). And don't reject suggestions from Tomboy upstream to collaborate on a note format
Keep the same license as Tomboy for any ported files, to ensure 2-way cooperation is possible. Use GPLv3 only for new add-ins not ported from Tomboy


See the difference between list 1 and list 2?

I don't give a sh*t about mono since I don't use any mono apps. Ubuntu/Debian can do what they want with mono. If someone disagrees, then he should switch to fedora or any other mono-free distro.

That's the spirit! People who disagree should also consider the option of working on alternative apps, to make them better, such that the Mono apps get dropped.

And, by the way, I don't understand your agression against me.

What aggression? You would prefer, perhaps, a hug?

[jonian_g]

What aggression? You would prefer, perhaps, a hug?

Cut the crap!

[Dragonbite]

If Mono becomes unavailable under a free license, and if all the best new apps over several years have been targeted to Mono, users of Linux will suffer a big setback and they will have to invest a lot of time and effort (and money) to port all those apps so they will run without Mono. Since we can develop such new apps now without Mono, and they can probably be developed just as easily without Mono, why subject the community to the risk?

There already are, and at the fist whiff of anything going down with Mono, then Mono would be dropped like a hot potato and replaced with the closest equivalent applications.

Banshee can be replaced by Rythmbox, Listen, Exaile, and many more.
Tomboy can be replaced with gNotes
Beagle can be replaced with Tracker
F-Spot... well it isn't the best but nobody's bothered to build a replacement for Gnome for photomanaging and gThumbs, while nice, doesn't quite make it. Currently Picasa (via Wine) is the best alternative.


So instead of cutting off a number of developers who have already produced Banshee, Tomboy, Beagle and F-Spot just because of the Mono platform boogeyman and possibly loosing them completely (depends on how ingrained they are with Mono and C#) as well as the gaming engines running on Mono, have whomever feels so strongly against it produce license-free alternatives good enough to replace the Mono-based ones. Or use KDE. There are very few KDE-based Mono applications (Kerry, the Beagle with KDE front-end is the only one I know of).

Not sure how Mono "undermine that foundation of Linux." because Mono CAN be removed/replaced, because people HAVE the choice to do that. Just because Ubuntu or Debian chooses to go one way or the other doesn't mean you have to choose to use them or keep them.

And what about the benefits to Linux in cross-compatibility?

[zoomy942]

this is the third thread i have seen about mono..
what is it and why is it bad? I dont understand fully.

[directhex]

this is the third thread i have seen about mono..
what is it and why is it bad? I dont understand fully.

It's an implementation of ECMA334 and ECMA335

And it's bad because Microsoft are the guys who filed those 2 standards.

That's the short version

[directhex]

Since we can develop such new apps now without Mono, and they can probably be developed just as easily without Mono, why subject the community to the risk?

Define "we"

If "we" means "everyone who isn't a developer on apps like Tomboy, F-Spot, banshee, Muine, Drapes, Cowbell, GNOME Do, Beagle, etc etc etc", then why not do it? Nobody is going to bundle Mono apps if the non-Mono apps are better. Why doesn't someone stop moaning and make credible alternatives which make the Desktop Team (who make the decisions over default apps in Ubuntu) go "wow, we should totally use this by default"? And no, that doesn't mean half-arsed "QUICK NOW!!" changes to apps like Gnote with no record for stability (and, in fact, now a record for corrupting users' notes), it means moving to clearly superior apps which, amongst other things, contain a clear migration path (importing any and all important data from the "legacy" Mono app). Make non-Mono apps rock, and the problem solves itself. Bin Mono with no regard to whether the alternatives are any better, and make Ubuntu categorically worse for its users. And, again, this is not an urgent question - Ubuntu has shipped Mono apps in the default install since 2006. Nothing's changed.

If "we" means "everyone, including those who ARE developers on apps like Tomboy, F-Spot, banshee, Muine, Drapes, Cowbell, GNOME Do, Beagle, etc etc etc, i.e. the Free Software world at large" then have you considered allowing developers to pick their own tools, rather than mandating a "permitted list" to them?

[zoomy942]

It's an implementation of ECMA334 and ECMA335

And it's bad because Microsoft are the guys who filed those 2 standards.

That's the short version

fair enough. so how does that affect standard users?

[directhex]

fair enough. so how does that affect standard users?

Tomboy and F-Spot are apps written using Mono (along with a bucket of Linux-targeted libraries such as GTK# for the GUI). And are in the default install.

[[h2o]]

fair enough. so how does that affect standard users?
Most likely not at all.
If you are (in my opinion) the paranoid kind of person, then you might see Mono as some sort of Doomsday device planted by Microsoft to kill Linux.

[karellen]

edward@alchemy-lab:~$ dpkg -l | grep mono
ii libmono-accessibility2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Accessibility library
ii libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 0.4-3 GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
ii libmono-addins0.2-cil 0.4-3 addin framework for extensible CLI applications/libraries
ii libmono-cairo2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Cairo library
ii libmono-corlib1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (1.0)
ii libmono-corlib2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono core library (2.0)
ii libmono-data-tds1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data library
ii libmono-data-tds2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Data Library
ii libmono-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Data.* libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-dev 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT - Development files
ii libmono-getoptions1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (1.0)
ii libmono-getoptions2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.GetOptions library (2.0)
ii libmono-i18n1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-i18n2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-peapi2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono PEAPI library
ii libmono-posix1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (1.0)
ii libmono-posix2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono.Posix library (2.0)
ii libmono-relaxng1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Relaxng library
ii libmono-security1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-security2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Security library
ii libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono SharpZipLib library
ii libmono-sqlite2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Sqlite library
ii libmono-system-data1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data library
ii libmono-system-data2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Data Library
ii libmono-system-runtime1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Runtime library
ii libmono-system-runtime2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Runtime Library
ii libmono-system-web1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web library
ii libmono-system-web2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Web Library
ii libmono-system1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (1.0)
ii libmono-system2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System libraries (2.0)
ii libmono-webbrowser0.5-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono Web Browser library
ii libmono-winforms2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono System.Windows.Forms library
ii libmono-zeroconf1.0-cil 0.7.6-1ubuntu1 CLI library for multicast DNS service discovery
ii libmono0 2.0.1-4 libraries for the Mono JIT
ii libmono1.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (1.0)
ii libmono2.0-cil 2.0.1-4 Mono libraries (2.0)
ii mono-2.0-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools for CLI 2.0
ii mono-2.0-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-2.0-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime (2.0)
ii mono-common 2.0.1-4 common files for Mono
ii mono-devel 2.0.1-4 Mono development tools
ii mono-gac 2.0.1-4 Mono GAC tool
ii mono-gmcs 2.0.1-4 Mono C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 compiler for CLI 2.0
ii mono-jit 2.0.1-4 fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
ii mono-runtime 2.0.1-4 Mono runtime
ii mono-utils 2.0.1-4 Mono utilities
ii monodevelop 2.0+dfsg-2ubuntu1 Development Environment for GNOME
ii monodoc-base 2.0-2ubuntu2 shared MonoDoc binaries
ii monodoc-manual 2.0-2ubuntu2 compiled XML documentation from the Mono project
edward@alchemy-lab:~$

I use f-spot for photos and banshee for playing music and videos. I don't care if it uses mono or not, I simply like those apps so I use them. Period. If I would switch to another photo manager, it would be picasa, which is even open-source and is in fact a windows app bundled with wine. I don't care. It works, it's pleasant to use, and it doesn't cost money. Period. End of story. I also use the Nvidia propietary driver, to play games, a lot of which are commercial. I even pay for these games. Why? Because I have fun playing them. I have every non-free coded installed on my system. Why? Because I like to watch a lot of anime, and fansubs are usually in non-free formats. I have fun watching them, so I do.

By the way, I also use opera as my default web browser, and I like to see nice sights in google earth too. I do use the open-source evince instead of adobe reader, but only because I like it better. It loads documents faster. If the speed advantage would have been the other way around, I would use adobe reader without giving it a second tought.

Keep in mind that I am going to study computer science, so it's not like I don't know what free software is about. I. just. don't. care.

Have a nice day everyone and could you people please stop whining about what other users should and should not run on their computers, because of some stupid "moral issues"? Thanks. Some people just want to get the most out of their €700,- machines.

+ 1 from me

[zekopeko]

Cut the crap!

aren't you aggressive? here's a hug.

[betrunkenaffe]

Why don't you just purge mono and move on with your life rather then waste your time trying to impose your opinion on everyone else? Anyway, Microsoft claims Linux is illegal too and has yet to prove it. Maybe we should just shutdown until Linux is Microsoft Certified as well?

Call me crazy but I had the same thoughts, doesn't matter what any one person does. Even the Stallman statement was a request that people don't develop in C# or as minimal as possible.

So I decided to try doing a purge, still have mono-common and libmono0 but I might need to reboot for those to disappear. For those that feel it is too much work, it took me 5 minutes (4 reading random other stuff).

[eragon100]

Call me crazy but I had the same thoughts, doesn't matter what any one person does. Even the Stallman statement was a request that people don't develop in C# or as minimal as possible.

So I decided to try doing a purge, still have mono-common and libmono0 but I might need to reboot for those to disappear. For those that feel it is too much work, it took me 5 minutes (4 reading random other stuff).

As stated above: my favorite media player (as well as quite a few other programs I use) is mono-based (banshee), so I am not going to purge it.

[.Maleficus.]

Sticky! Please oh please sticky this so the Mono threads can stop!


Edit: Nevermind :) and thank you.

[jimv]

If it's dangerous to use Mono because of the possibility of a submarine patent, or the possibility that Microsoft will object to using a language that they invented: Why do people still use Wine? That *reimplements* the Win32 API which has got to be more risky than anything Mono is doing. Microsoft don't even claim to be able to provide anyone with a fair license to implement w32.

Your logic is solid. I don't understand it either.

[MountainX]

Your logic is solid.
The logic is not that solid... I can see several holes in it and I'm not an expert on this subject.

I don't understand it either.

I believe it is worth getting the full story so we understand both side of the argument. Here are some links I'm looking at now:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/13/suse-mono-good-for-windows/
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/05/25/licence-microsoft-moonlight-mono/
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/141254
http://www.osnews.com/story/8712

Mono is based on a standard designed and invented by Microsoft.

“Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.”
–James Plamondon, Microsoft Technical Evangelist (http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf) [PDF]

[AICollector]

The computer I was referring to is an old one, a Pentium 2, 256mb of RAM, and a motherboard and accompanying tower chasis that makes you wonder how we can move it without bones breaking under the strain. That's my parents computer, I'm well aware that my neighbor on my left has a similar system.

So basically, I'd like to remind everyone that not every person out there has a modern computer, and hence why I suggested a 'lite' version designed to run on their machines. Linux's credentials as running on machines that the likes of Vista and Windows 7 left behind to rot will be tarnished if the most user-friendly and most public faceing distro can't run on older machines.

Regardless of the poltics invovled, try and think of those who are not so well of as to be able to purchase a new computer.


As a side note, it may be worth it to get Canocial to devote extra time to the Kubuntu releases. (The default install is a tad messy, including unprofessional items such as some of the helpful tooltips still say 'xxxxx ubuntu xxxx' instead of Kubuntu, or the inclusion of a still prototypical package manager and not-entirely-stable connection manager)

[The Toxic Mite]

inb4 teh lock???????

[directhex]

So basically, I'd like to remind everyone that not every person out there has a modern computer, and hence why I suggested a 'lite' version designed to run on their machines. Linux's credentials as running on machines that the likes of Vista and Windows 7 left behind to rot will be tarnished if the most user-friendly and most public faceing distro can't run on older machines.

It's called Xubuntu.

[directhex]

The logic is not that solid... I can see several holes in it and I'm not an expert on this subject.



I believe it is worth getting the full story so we understand both side of the argument. Here are some links I'm looking at now:
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/06/13/suse-mono-good-for-windows/
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/05/25/licence-microsoft-moonlight-mono/
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/141254
http://www.osnews.com/story/8712

Mono is based on a standard designed and invented by Microsoft.

“Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.”
–James Plamondon, Microsoft Technical Evangelist (http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf) [PDF]

Quoting Boycott Novell is like quoting the National Enquirer. Except their Elvis Lives stories are better researched and have more citations