PDA

View Full Version : Call for banning MONO



Pages : [1] 2

data2005
August 6th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Hello,

this poll is to find out how other Ubuntu-Users feel towards Mono being included in Ubuntu-default.

I do not understand why Mark Shuttleworth doesn't take precautions so that Ubuntu isn't tainted by a potentially trojanesque software.

Excluding Banshee, F-Spot and Tomboy shouldn't be that much of a deal - that way, it will probably be a lot less interesting to include more and more Mono-based programs by default.

ubuntu basically grants Microsoft the leverage-tactic it uses so effectively on its own platform - shipping as default inclusion on the system.

It's enough Novell does this, why must Ubuntu and therefore taking away potentially alternatives?

It would not be so much of a problem, if MS put everything Mono-related under GPLv3 - with no strings whatsoever attached.

Now I don't want to start a discussion on how Mono might be perceived as untangled - it is clearly not:

“Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) — it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is.”
-Brian Goldfarb [Microsoft]

There is even a blog-how-to remove mono completely:

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/04/how-to-remove-mono-m-from-ubuntu-hardy-heron/

But why even put it in there in the first place?

Do you think this hurts or helps Ubuntu (and Linux) in the long-term?

bash
August 6th, 2008, 01:34 PM
I smell flame-bait ...

Anyone want to move this to recurring discussions?

Lostincyberspace
August 6th, 2008, 01:40 PM
The thread title and the poll question are very differen't.

Do I want it banned? = No Open source equal freedom


Do I want it removed from the default Ubuntu installation? = Yes But mostly because most people dont use the tools that a written in mono so it is just taking up space.

newbie2
August 6th, 2008, 01:44 PM
I smell flame-bait ...
i don't .... i even didn't know that :
In fact, given that Microsoft itself is now saying that Mono should be ’safe’ only for Novell’s customers, can anyone blame people for wanting it removed?
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/05/microsoft-plans-for-winfoss/
:rolleyes:

NovaAesa
August 6th, 2008, 01:46 PM
You put a $ in MS, therefore (IMO) your argumunt has little meret from the get-go. Add this to your small post cound and all alarms are yelling "troll!". Btw, just so you know, mono is actually released under the GPL, LGPL and the MIT lisencse. If applications happen to be based on mono, I don't see why you should hold that against them. Next thing you will be asking is for wine to be remeved from the repos!

kirsis
August 6th, 2008, 01:52 PM
Again? :rolleyes:


You put a $ in MS, therefore (IMO) your argumunt has little meret from the get-go. Add this to your small post cound and all alarms are yelling "troll!"

This.

huxterby
August 6th, 2008, 01:52 PM
I remember getting in a debate about Mono a while back on a Debian forum, it got a bit ugly with Gnome followers and puritans against the Mono fans.

Know what I do? Xfce on all my desktops. Light and fast just how I like it. Also, if you are that against any particular app in Linux you can simply remove it.

Huxterby

loell
August 6th, 2008, 01:56 PM
I am not a fan of mono, this topic has been discussed many times, it doesn't lead anywhere good.

wersdaluv
August 6th, 2008, 02:07 PM
I don't know so much about this. I don't like the thought of using MS technology but I love Gnome-do and Tomboy Notes.

conehead77
August 6th, 2008, 02:11 PM
... M$ ...

I read until this point :rolleyes:

Keyper7
August 6th, 2008, 02:14 PM
I vote "Yes, this thread should be locked".

wersdaluv
August 6th, 2008, 02:18 PM
I vote "Yes, this thread should be locked".
Or be moved to recurring discussions, at least :)

phrostbyte
August 6th, 2008, 02:38 PM
Poor Mono people

FOSS/Linux people hate them because they are promoting a Microsoft technology

Microsoft people hate them because they are promoting a Linux technology

WHO LIKES MONO?!!

:confused::(:confused::(

fluteflute
August 6th, 2008, 02:45 PM
Poor Mono people

FOSS/Linux people hate them because they are promoting a Microsoft technology

Microsoft people hate them because they are promoting a Linux technology

WHO LIKES MONO?!!

:confused::(:confused::(
Well obviously the writer's of Mono apps like Banshee, F-spot and Tomboy. :) (Or at least until they found out how many others hate it for no reason)

Joeb454
August 6th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Moved to Recurring Discussions

atomkarinca
August 6th, 2008, 02:55 PM
The disease? Sure.

data2005
August 6th, 2008, 03:22 PM
You put a $ in MS, therefore (IMO) your argumunt has little meret from the get-go. Add this to your small post cound and all alarms are yelling "troll!". Btw, just so you know, mono is actually released under the GPL, LGPL and the MIT lisencse. If applications happen to be based on mono, I don't see why you should hold that against them. Next thing you will be asking is for wine to be remeved from the repos!

Well, for the $-sign: For the lone argument of not feeding a troll, I changed it.

As for Wine:
Wine's focus is primarily legacy-support.
You wouldn't recommend building something new under Linux using Wine (I do know some programs like Google-stuff does anyway).

Mono in contrast does create new dependancies of critical parts IF built into something like Gnome... nobody in their right mind would built some part into Gnome using Wine as dependancy - so there is a difference:
Wine is legacy, which a Linux user can avoid,
while Mono.Net is the future and needs to be avoided, before becoming problematic.

geoken
August 6th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Well obviously the writer's of Mono apps like Banshee, F-spot and Tomboy. :) (Or at least until they found out how many others hate it for no reason)

Or maybe it's just that their common employer (Novell) likes Mono.

Didn't you ever find it strange that such a disproportionate amount of Mono apps are officially run by Novell? Not to slam Novell, but if Mono was so awesome why aren't more devs using it?

fluteflute
August 6th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Well Novell do develop Mono. So perhaps they are just trying to prove it is possible to write good apps using it? Otherwise threads like this would perhaps be even more critical than they are anyway!

Edit: Just discovered Gnome-do is another (extremely popular) Mono program.

spauldingsmails
August 6th, 2008, 05:47 PM
I voted yes here because I don't believe Mono should be installed in Ubuntu Linux by default.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that I do not see too many advantages in the Mono project; OOXML should have warned everyone that when Microsoft submits a specification to the ECMA and ISO (in this case CLI) it does not necessarily mean that the new standard is truly open.

Mono does not really enhance Ubuntu or Gnome in any obvious way; there are a host of programs that fulfill the job better than the limited range that is available via GTK#. I guess the only benefit I can see is in luring DotNet developers to the Linux platform, but they can install the Mono environment themselves if needs be.

I agree with some posters here that seeing the $ often invalidates one's arguments; I can't stand it personally and usually switch off when I see it, but I think it is worth weighing up the positives and negatives of a default Mono and personally I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

original_jamingrit
August 6th, 2008, 05:48 PM
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing

Mono is available under both GPL/LPGL and proprietary license (you get to choose) Ubuntu's default is obviously the GPL one.

Also, as long as the free mono is used under the GPL, it cannot be used by Microsoft as patent leverage.

From the above webpage link:

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here (http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html)

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

And as for the Trojan thing, what exactly does that even mean in this context? The nature of an open sourced program prohibits that.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next free software user, but not everyone at the company is an evil cultist bent on world domination. Some of them are actually just people and programmers. the .Net framework is just that: a framework. It can't be copyrighted. It is patented, but that patent makes allowances for open source users.

kirsis
August 6th, 2008, 06:19 PM
OOXML should have warned everyone that when Microsoft submits a specification to the ECMA and ISO (in this case CLI) it does not necessarily mean that the new standard is truly open.


The problem with OOXML is that it's near unimplementable (fully) by third parties. Even Microsoft isn't rushing to implement it.

Mono, on the other hand, has (AFAIK) full .NET 2.0 compatibility with incomplete support for whatever's after 2.0 (3.5?). It is being implemented already and very successfuly at that. This is the complete opposite of the OOXML scenario.

Besides, we don't really need Microsoft on this one. The way they develop their APIs does not really affect Mono users. We have our own APIs to develop and improve.



Mono does not really enhance Ubuntu or Gnome in any obvious way;


The devil's in the subtle details :)


There are a host of programs that fulfill the job better than the limited range that is available via GTK#.


A host of programs can not perform a job better than GTK#. GTK# is not a program. What exactly is your point here?



I guess the only benefit I can see is in luring DotNet developers to the Linux platform, but they can install the Mono environment themselves if needs be.


It is not the only benefit. And the end users need Mono too, not just developers. Why inconvenience them forcing them to install Mono manually? It's not like it takes up a ton of the nowadays cheap-as-hell storage space.



I think it is worth weighing up the positives and negatives of a default Mono and personally I believe the negatives outweigh the positives.

Well, go ahead and mention some negatives then. You're just throwing words around so far without mentioning any actual harm that Mono is causing you.

karellen
August 6th, 2008, 06:43 PM
I've stopped reading when I reached
I do not understand why Mark Shuttleworth doesn't make sure, that basic Ubuntu isn't tainted by that potentially trojan software.

klange
August 6th, 2008, 07:04 PM
I stopped reading at the title.

Mono is an important step in quite a few ways:
1. It provides a massive set of new, extensive, and expandable programming languages for the open-source world.
2. It makes transitioning to Linux easier for developers.
3. It improves compatibility between operating systems.

saulgoode
August 6th, 2008, 07:54 PM
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing

From the above webpage link:


The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): here (http://web.archive.org/web/200304241.../msg00218.html)

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.
Basically the Mono Project FAQ page is lying. No such grant has ever been provided by Microsoft. Jim Miller's statement merely said that royalty-free patent licensing would be available -- presumably parties interested in obtaining such a grant would have to negotiate the terms with Microsoft (which is precisely what Novell did in 2006).

cardinals_fan
August 6th, 2008, 08:40 PM
I vote yes, because all the included Mono apps are horribly bloated. However, "banning" is the wrong term. Removal is much better :)

original_jamingrit
August 6th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Basically the Mono Project FAQ page is lying. No such grant has ever been provided by Microsoft. Jim Miller's statement merely said that royalty-free patent licensing would be available -- presumably parties interested in obtaining such a grant would have to negotiate the terms with Microsoft (which is precisely what Novell did in 2006).

Interesting. I was under the impression that Novell's negotation pertained more to the commercially licensed Mono rather than the free Mono. Also, if the grant was given to Novell's free Mono, shouldn't that mean that any Mono developer and user should enjoy it by extension, as long as it's with Mono? Maybe I'll have to look it up some more.

data2005
August 6th, 2008, 09:10 PM
I vote yes, because all the included Mono apps are horribly bloated. However, "banning" is the wrong term. Removal is much better :)

I changed the title to "Removal", so it is clear it shouldn't be banned per se.
Also took away the $-sign so no-one should be "offended" by reading a single character in the subject-post.

Xanatos Craven
August 6th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Eh, I don't care about Mono itself one way or another. On one hand I think Microsoft would be crazy to actually sue anyone over the use of Mono when they're trying desperately to not look like the spawn of Satan. On the other hand, Mono apps tend to be more resource-hungry than their native counterparts (not as bad as an interpreted language though).

At the end of the day, all I know is this : if Banshee or Gnome-Do are removed from the repositories, there will be hell to pay.

Methuselah
August 6th, 2008, 09:25 PM
Mono should probably not be unnecessarily promoted.
To the extent that it acts as a compatibility layer for .NET applications that's OK.
(Though note that some key libraries are not part of standard so a completely standard conforming .NET implementation might still fail to run programs written for windows.
A fully compatible implementation might violate some of Microsoft's ridiculous patents).

However, there are so many alternatives that are completely kosher.
Even Sun's Java is now GPL software.
So it is unwise to develop a dependency on Mono.

sicofante
August 6th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Mono does not really enhance Ubuntu or Gnome in any obvious way

Except for being the framework used by the most popular Gnome apps... :confused:


; there are a host of programs that fulfill the job better than the limited range that is available via GTK#.In your humble opinion, I guess... F-Spot, Banshee, Gnome-Do, Tomboy are just four of the most polished and better designed apps in this "design's desert" called Linux.

All this is pure anti-Microsoft paranoia. Remove Mono apps and watch Linux being forgotten for good by the few non-geeks approaching us.

FuturePilot
August 6th, 2008, 09:34 PM
Excluding Banshee, F-Spot and Tomboy shouldn't be that much of a deal - that way, it will probably be a lot less interesting to include more and more Mono-based programs by default.
Yes it should because I love Banshee and I think it's the best media player out there. I also use Tomboy Fspot and Gnome-do a lot as well. And I know those applications have a large user base. Personally I like Mono. I still do not understand all the Mono hating. :confused:

cardinals_fan
August 6th, 2008, 09:37 PM
In your humble opinion, I guess... F-Spot, Banshee, Gnome-Do, Tomboy are just four of the most polished and better designed apps in this "design's desert" called Linux.

It's all opinion. You seem to love these apps, while I hate them bitterly.

FyreBrand
August 6th, 2008, 10:04 PM
I voted no. I love .NET, but then again I'm a .NET programmer.

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 02:24 AM
All this is pure anti-Microsoft paranoia. Remove Mono apps and watch Linux being forgotten for good by the few non-geeks approaching us.

I think you're missing the point.

If you consider those to be some of the best gnome apps then it stands to reason that the bulk of development will move toward them, while people simultaneously loose interest in gThumb, Rhythmbox, et all. The fear is that this will make the other apps become stale, then at some point MS will say 'only companies who signed patent protection deals like Novell are allowed to use our patented code. Canonical must pay if it wants it's users to be able to use Mono".

cardinals_fan
August 7th, 2008, 03:00 AM
If you consider those to be some of the best gnome apps then it stands to reason that the bulk of development will move toward them, while people simultaneously loose interest in gThumb, Rhythmbox, et all..
...which would be too bad, because gThumb is a vastly better organizer than F-Spot can ever hope to be.

Swarms
August 7th, 2008, 03:18 AM
From a consumers point of view (me, I am not so technical). I really don't care in what my program is written. I happen to like Banshee and so do many others apparently.
And to all you worrywarts, if Microsoft decides to screw the world over, license everything to ashes, not even if its possible like someone else said, then I am sure alternatives would pop up. After all there is no greater motivator than people feeling treated wrongfully.

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 07:13 AM
then at some point MS will say 'only companies who signed patent protection deals like Novell are allowed to use our patented code
how can something be patented if it's released under GPL?:confused:

sicofante
August 7th, 2008, 07:45 AM
I think you're missing the point.

If you consider those to be some of the best gnome apps then it stands to reason that the bulk of development will move toward them, while people simultaneously loose interest in gThumb, Rhythmbox, et all. The fear is that this will make the other apps become stale, then at some point MS will say 'only companies who signed patent protection deals like Novell are allowed to use our patented code. Canonical must pay if it wants it's users to be able to use Mono".
The fact these apps have been made with Mono only means one thing to me: Mono developers tend to think of their users first. They have found a nice platform to work with. If MS decides to kill these projects as they are (and allow me not to take that for granted as many of you seem to be doing), nothing prevents these fine developers to devote their efforts to another framework.

In other words, it seems there exists a Mono style and culture, similar to what happens at the Mac (you'll have a hard time finding an ugly Mono or Mac app), which I like a lot, because they take care of the small details non-programmers care for. They absolutely respect non-geeks needs. Something not so many can proudly say. They don't put a "g" or a "k" in front of every app's name because that's ridiculous. They don't ask the user to learn complicated compression strings (Rythmbox LAME string anyone?), they don't expect people to focus on anything else but the task at hand and they don't expect the user to RTFM. If these fine developers are forced to abandon Mono (which, again, I seriously doubt), they'll take their elegance and design anywhere else.

While that supposed threat from MS is nowhere near, may the Mono devs keep their brilliant work.

Jee, I might even start learning Mono one of these days!!

saulgoode
August 7th, 2008, 08:07 AM
how can something be patented if it's released under GPL?:confused:When the copyright holder is not the same person as the patent holder and the copyright holder is not licensed to use the patented technology.


The fact these apps have been made with Mono only means one thing to me: Mono developers tend to think of their users first. They have found a nice platform to work with. If MS decides to kill these projects as they are (and allow me not to take that for granted as many of you seem to be doing), nothing prevents these fine developers to devote their efforts to another framework.
If someone is found to be infringing patents, do you think maybe there might be more of a penalty assessed than "stop doing that"? When Alcatel won their suit against Microsoft for MP3 patent infringement, wasn't there a little matter of a $1.5 billion penalty?

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 08:42 AM
how can something be patented if it's released under GPL?:confused:

If not released under GPLv3, then patents are a viable thread, because GPLv2 does not deal with patent-threats effectively.

So MS basically tries to exploit that loophole while making sure (with the help of Novell) it's .NET-technology replaces other non-MS-technologies in Linux.

As soon as any part of Gnome itself becomes dependant on Mono (as suggested by Miguel himself to replace the current Gnome-panel with a Mono-one), it can no longer be removed as easily (and probably won't as long as MS keeps still about their patent-claims to let the dependancies grow).

sicofante
August 7th, 2008, 08:43 AM
If someone is found to be infringing patents, do you think maybe there might be more of a penalty assessed than "stop doing that"?
Not even that if you happen to live and develop in software-patents-free countries. Never assume the US is the world.

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 08:48 AM
They have found a nice platform to work with.

So a nice platform to work with is okay for giving up your freedom,
and worse: By installing it default is surrendering the other users freedom, too.

I have nothing against you being able to install Mono if you should feel like, but don't decide for all users that this be the default.

Efforts and focus should be then to make another platform as equally polished for programmers as Mono seems to be, like ubuntu tries to accomplish this goal for the desktop.

Otherwise you could use Microsoft Windows Vista, there you have it all-polished and non-free already!

saulgoode
August 7th, 2008, 09:11 AM
Not even that if you happen to live and develop in software-patents-free countries. Never assume the US is the world.
Whether the patents can be enforced is a different argument. I was confronting your contention that "if MS decides to kill these projects..." then the projects could just move on to other things.

I have zero problem with any person, project, or company which wishes to denounce or ignore software patenting while producing useful software -- or stipulate that there may be differing regional statutes. But what Novell and the Mono Project have done is the polar opposite of this. Novell has entered into an exclusive "covenant" with Microsoft which specifically addresses the software patents associated with Mono, and the Mono Project willfully misrepresents that Microsoft has indemnified the use of their patents "to anyone ... for free and for any purpose".

sicofante
August 7th, 2008, 09:17 AM
Whether the patents can be enforced is a different argument. I was confronting your contention that "if MS decides to kill these projects..." then the projects could just move on to other things.
I was meaning they might move on to other platform not onto other things, but now that I think of it, they might as well just move to some free country where MS has no power to threaten them. If -and only if- it has been proved MS has that power today, of course. Too many assumptions are being made in this thread...

kirsis
August 7th, 2008, 09:28 AM
So a nice platform to work with is okay for giving up your freedom,
and worse: By installing it default is surrendering the other users freedom, too.


You are talking about freedom as in beer here. Aren't FOSS fundies supposed to worry about their freedom as in speech?

Besides, Mono is currently free in every meaning. Free as in speech, free as in beer. The big debate is about whether or not it'll remain free as in beer to use forever.



I have nothing against you being able to install Mono if you should feel like, but don't decide for all users that this be the default.


Don't decide that it's not. It being installed by default has no detrimental impact on your - as a single user's - experience. It does not take up gigabytes upon gigabytes of system space, does not bog down the system and allows users to run more applications.



Efforts and focus should be then to make another platform as equally polished for programmers as Mono seems to be, like ubuntu tries to accomplish this goal for the desktop.


Well, get cracking. Are you even a programmer or you just one of those guys who just has amazing ideas about everything?



Otherwise you could use Microsoft Windows Vista, there you have it all-polished and non-free already!

What a BS thing to say. Why must FOSS fundies always resort to instructing others to use Windows (as if it was some huge insult) if they don't agree with them. It's retarded, you know damn well nobody is going to use Vista (if they don't already). A lot of people want to use Linux and happen to have different opinions from yours whats good for it. Get over yourself.



As for the whole patent issue, a) Microsoft has never sued any open-source software vendor, it's unlikely they would, b) Google Shuttleworth's opinions on patents, c) Open source friendly companies like IBM, Sun and Novell hold a lot of patents. If Microsoft decided to wave the sue-gun around, they could probably find a patent of theirs MS is infringing to keep them at bay. The reason all the big companies are sitting on a huge heap of patents is not so they can enforce them and sue others. Its so they can protect themselves if others decide to sue them. Most software these days infringes some patent or another, nobody can be 100% sure they're NOT infringing on some crazy patent, so patents are basically a security measure for the big ones. Goes to show how broken software patents are.

Oh and d) Ubuntu HQ is in Europe, where programs for computers are excluded from patentability. Good luck enforcing US patent law there

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by data2005 View Post
Efforts and focus should be then to make another platform as equally polished for programmers as Mono seems to be, like ubuntu tries to accomplish this goal for the desktop.

great, another fork; why don't you start coding? ;)
data2005, you seem paranoid to me.

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Besides, Mono is currently free in every meaning. Free as in speech, free as in beer.


This is simply not true.

Free as in beer = yes.
Free as in speech = no way.
.Net is covered with patents, and MS openly acknowledged you need a contract (covenant not to sue) to be legally save to use it or related technology:

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq.html

Quote:
"You are covered if you are doing non-commercial open source software development. This includes individual enthusiasts, such as a student or a developer who does work on his own time on a project of personal interest to him. If you are compensated for your development, then your activities are considered "commercial", and you would not be covered."

This is in Novells own words.

It basically says: Use of Novell is okay and otherwise only non-commercial use of Suse!

So stop saying otherwise!

In the last sentence, novell says core-components like Samba, Mono, etc. will be improved....
Anyone smells embrace and extend?




The big debate is about whether or not it'll remain free as in beer to use forever.


Also not true, because if it would be free-as-in-speech, there would ALWAYS be a way to keep it free as in beer (see RedHat - Centos), because there would be no way for MS to cancel its free-as-in-beer-offer and start enforce payment.

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 11:40 AM
data2005, you seem paranoid to me.

What if Microsoft would let anybody willfully download, spread
and use their so-called "IP" first and after having gained a stronghold find a way to make them pay?

Does this sound like a familiar strategy?

"If they have to pirate something, let it be our OS and not the competitor's. We will figure out how to make them pay, later."

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 12:04 PM
What if Microsoft would let anybody willfully download, spread
and use their so-called "IP" first and after having gained a stronghold find a way to make them pay?

yes, Microsoft definitely needs the stronghold over the 0.8% market share possessed by Linux, otherwise it will go bankrupt (sarcasm) ;)

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 12:08 PM
how can something be patented if it's released under GPL?:confused:

1) I create a programming language and submit it for standards approval (which allows me to retain all patents)

2) You take my standard and write an implementation (which violates my patents)


The concept is nothing new. Off the top of my head I can think of multimedia codecs which were open source but were said to infringe on the patents of other codecs.

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 12:13 PM
yes, Microsoft definitely needs the stronghold over the 0.8% market share possessed by Linux, otherwise it will go bankrupt

You think Microsoft has some long-term plan to prevent Linux from getting bigger?

How could this work?
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

Bill Gates own words:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-212942.html

Just replace "get sold every year in China" with "get installed with Linux and our Mono-IP"...

So this is their strategy:
Get as much official "IP" in Linux as possible and make as much of the core dependant on it.

This way if MS wants to hurt Linux (making it look like a business risk, for example), all they do is wait (Linux percentage going up the same as Mono with every distribution shipping Mono installed as default) and at the right time make an injunction based on GPLv2 § 7 (Mono is based on v2, not v3) to stop everyone not having a contract with Microsoft from distributing Linux while an endless lawsuit is to be settled...

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 12:14 PM
great, another fork; why don't you start coding? ;)
data2005, you seem paranoid to me.

Who's talking about a fork? Various Mono alternative languages have been mentioned in this very thread (python, java).

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 12:17 PM
yes, Microsoft definitely needs the stronghold over the 0.8% market share possessed by Linux, otherwise it will go bankrupt

Your argument that MS does not consider Linux a threat is completely incorrect. Surely you've read one of the numerous recent comments by Ballmer where he says open source is Microsoft's number 1 threat (above even Apple).

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 12:42 PM
Your argument that MS does not consider Linux a threat is completely incorrect. Surely you've read one of the numerous recent comments by Ballmer where he says open source is Microsoft's number 1 threat (above even Apple).

facts, not words (even those of a CEO):
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q4_07.mspx
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/23/Hnmsclimbs_1.html
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5000
their revenue is increasing ;)

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 02:16 PM
facts, not words (even those of a CEO):

their revenue is increasing ;)

Who said it wasn't? I think you need to refine your definition of the word 'threat'. A threat is something which you perceive to have a negative impact on you some point in the future.

If I claimed someone threatened my life, would you disprove that by pointing out that I'm currently alive? Well that's pretty much what you're doing by posting current earning results as a response to perceived future threats.

The fact remains, as you admitted, that their CEO has on multiple occasions publicly cited open source software as their number 1 threat. No matter how many earning results you post, it wont support your belief that MS doesn't consider Linux a threat considering their CEO is saying the opposite.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Hello,

this poll is to find out how other Ubuntu-Users feel towards Mono being included in Ubuntu-default.

I do not understand why Mark Shuttleworth doesn't take precautions so that Ubuntu isn't tainted by a potentially trojanesque software.

Excluding Banshee, F-Spot and Tomboy shouldn't be that much of a deal - that way, it will probably be a lot less interesting to include more and more Mono-based programs by default.

ubuntu basically grants Microsoft the leverage-tactic it uses so effectively on its own platform - shipping as default inclusion on the system.

It's enough Novell does this, why must Ubuntu and therefore taking away potentially alternatives?

It would not be so much of a problem, if MS put everything Mono-related under GPLv3 - with no strings whatsoever attached.

Now I don't want to start a discussion on how Mono might be perceived as untangled - it is clearly not:

“Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) — it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is.”
-Brian Goldfarb [Microsoft]

There is even a blog-how-to remove mono completely:

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/04/how-to-remove-mono-m-from-ubuntu-hardy-heron/

But why even put it in there in the first place?

Do you think this hurts or helps Ubuntu (and Linux) in the long-term?

What's your motivation?

Seriously. I often find myself asking this in the face of the ZOMG!MONO! crowd.

There are LOADS of Microsoft-derived technologies in almost every desktop Linux system. There are loads of technologies covered by active patent hoarders. Ever played an MP3 with your Ubuntu system? That's a patent violated. Ever double clicked? Ever accessed files over a network? Viewed a .gif file? Patents are de rigeur for companies around the world - it's sad, but true.

Gnome already relies on Microsoft technology out of the box - ever noticed the SAMBA abilities in "Connect To Server"? Ever noticed how much the SAMBA developers get sued by Microsoft? How about AJAX? Here's an irony: this very forum uses AJAX, which is Microsoft-patented technology. You can't post a rebuttal to this message without infringing those patents.

This might hurt, but I've got to say it: Mark Shuttleworth is smarter than you. He is. He's made millions, and been to space, and made a better-informed judgement about how to deal with potentially patent-encumbered software in his Linux distribution:


At this stage we see no significant issues with patents and Mono. There is a risk of a patent claim against almost any component of Ubuntu - across every jurisdiction in which Ubuntu ships, the patent minefield is too complex. Our view is that we can deal with patent suits if they arise, but removing or re-engineering the relevant components.

That's not Mono-specific. And really, Microsoft would be stupid to even consider pursuing a patent case of any kind against any Mono-using technologies. The terms under which the .NET specifications were filed to ECMA/ISO forbid it, and there are a number of Free Software companies with some very large scary patents which could be used to inflict an awful lot more financial damage to Microsoft than they could cause to anyone else.

You ever used a web site and gone "man, I wish this was standards-based"? Guess what - Mono IS standards based. Unlike, say, Adobe Flash, it's a proper published, implementable standard. There is zero technical merit to the "remove Mono" discussion. And the decision has been made, by Mark Shuttleworth, how Ubuntu should proceed. You know what "dictator for life" means, yes?

While you're on the Freedom Train, how about chasing some genuinely non-free (rather than hypocritically singled-out non-free) things like binary graphics drivers, or media codec support, or the flash plugin, or non-free fonts? Hell, you might get some traction waving the "no Free software!" anti-Mono flag to the gNewSense crowd (or whatever they're called these days).

Ubuntu is a distribution designed to refine the maelstrom of awesome that is the Debian project into managable, well-packaged snack-size portions. If the best-of-breed software for that system demands pulling in one library or other framework, then that's what happens. And if Ubuntu wants to be best-of-breed, it needs to offer best-of-breed, along with the dependency chain. And it should be noted that the 1000-or-so Debian Developers behind the project raised absolutely no objection to including standards-based Free Software in their distribution. Crippling Ubuntu's ability to run great apps due to "Freedom" concerns, whilst shipping non-free firmwares and BLOBs, is, frankly, dumb beyond measure.

--Jo Shields, proud member of the Debian & Ubuntu Mono packaging teams

kinematic
August 7th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Ever played an MP3 with your Ubuntu system? That's a patent violated. Ever double clicked? Ever accessed files over a network? Viewed a .gif file? Patents are de rigeur for companies around the world - it's sad, but true.

Going by that comment I'm going to assume you're from the US. If I'm right and you are indeed from the US you need to understand one thing, not every country on earth recognizes software patents so your statement is simply a load of bull. If you want to talk about patent violations at least make sure you know what you're taking about instead of posting such nonsense.

smartboyathome
August 7th, 2008, 04:54 PM
I just wanted to throw out there that Mono impliments the C# language in the free version, which is the standards version of .Net. If you want the non-free portions of it, you have to manually install it. Also, Ubuntu uses an older version of mono, because patents can be an issue now. This version os guarenteed free of patents, and thus you should have nothing to worry about.

EDIT: Also, if you want to get rid of all patent-infringing items, get rid of the double click. Microsoft patented that, too! ;)

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 05:26 PM
What's your motivation?

Seriously. I often find myself asking this in the face of the ZOMG!MONO! crowd.

There are LOADS of Microsoft-derived technologies in almost every desktop Linux system. There are loads of technologies covered by active patent hoarders. Ever played an MP3 with your Ubuntu system? That's a patent violated. Ever double clicked? Ever accessed files over a network? Viewed a .gif file? Patents are de rigeur for companies around the world - it's sad, but true.

Gnome already relies on Microsoft technology out of the box - ever noticed the SAMBA abilities in "Connect To Server"? Ever noticed how much the SAMBA developers get sued by Microsoft? How about AJAX? Here's an irony: this very forum uses AJAX, which is Microsoft-patented technology. You can't post a rebuttal to this message without infringing those patents.

This might hurt, but I've got to say it: Mark Shuttleworth is smarter than you. He is. He's made millions, and been to space, and made a better-informed judgement about how to deal with potentially patent-encumbered software in his Linux distribution:



That's not Mono-specific. And really, Microsoft would be stupid to even consider pursuing a patent case of any kind against any Mono-using technologies. The terms under which the .NET specifications were filed to ECMA/ISO forbid it, and there are a number of Free Software companies with some very large scary patents which could be used to inflict an awful lot more financial damage to Microsoft than they could cause to anyone else.

You ever used a web site and gone "man, I wish this was standards-based"? Guess what - Mono IS standards based. Unlike, say, Adobe Flash, it's a proper published, implementable standard. There is zero technical merit to the "remove Mono" discussion. And the decision has been made, by Mark Shuttleworth, how Ubuntu should proceed. You know what "dictator for life" means, yes?

While you're on the Freedom Train, how about chasing some genuinely non-free (rather than hypocritically singled-out non-free) things like binary graphics drivers, or media codec support, or the flash plugin, or non-free fonts? Hell, you might get some traction waving the "no Free software!" anti-Mono flag to the gNewSense crowd (or whatever they're called these days).

Ubuntu is a distribution designed to refine the maelstrom of awesome that is the Debian project into managable, well-packaged snack-size portions. If the best-of-breed software for that system demands pulling in one library or other framework, then that's what happens. And if Ubuntu wants to be best-of-breed, it needs to offer best-of-breed, along with the dependency chain. And it should be noted that the 1000-or-so Debian Developers behind the project raised absolutely no objection to including standards-based Free Software in their distribution. Crippling Ubuntu's ability to run great apps due to "Freedom" concerns, whilst shipping non-free firmwares and BLOBs, is, frankly, dumb beyond measure.

--Jo Shields, proud member of the Debian & Ubuntu Mono packaging teams

+1 for this. this discussion goes nowhere anyway

karellen
August 7th, 2008, 05:29 PM
I just wanted to throw out there that Mono impliments the C# language in the free version, which is the standards version of .Net. If you want the non-free portions of it, you have to manually install it. Also, Ubuntu uses an older version of mono, because patents can be an issue now. This version os guarenteed free of patents, and thus you should have nothing to worry about.

EDIT: Also, if you want to get rid of all patent-infringing items, get rid of the double click. Microsoft patented that, too! ;)

it won't matter how many arguments someone posts against his convictions, the OP has his fixed idea and nothing will change that

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 05:44 PM
This might hurt, but I've got to say it: Mark Shuttleworth is smarter than you. He is.


I assume you must be a very wise man to be able to say so, although you neither now me (nor probably Mark) and there is objectively no known measure of determening one "being smarter than the other" anyway...or wait:




He's made millions,...


Wow, by that logic Bill Gates must be multiple times smarter than Mark and Linus combined... ;)

data2005
August 7th, 2008, 05:51 PM
I just wanted to throw out there that Mono impliments the C# language in the free version, which is the standards version of .Net. If you want the non-free portions of it, you have to manually install it. Also, Ubuntu uses an older version of mono, because patents can be an issue now. This version os guarenteed free of patents, and thus you should have nothing to worry about.

EDIT: Also, if you want to get rid of all patent-infringing items, get rid of the double click. Microsoft patented that, too! ;)

That's intersting, thanks for posting.

As for the difference of the double-click (or any other non-trivial patents) versus mono:

With Mono, microsoft can single out a specific target without touching others: Linux.

The doubleclick would affect everyone and his dog, so no chance Microsoft would start suing Linux for that.
Also with Mono, they could go to court, show up their "contracts with Novell" and single out even further like RedHat or Ubuntu only for the FUD-effect like SCO did: It's a risk and you are using DIRECTLY our unlicensed invention: Mono.

Thats a much more compelling case than Microsoft versus the world on enforcing "doublecklick"....

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 05:53 PM
That's not Mono-specific. And really, Microsoft would be stupid to even consider pursuing a patent case of any kind against any Mono-using technologies. The terms under which the .NET specifications were filed to ECMA/ISO forbid it, and there are a number of Free Software companies with some very large scary patents which could be used to inflict an awful lot more financial damage to Microsoft than they could cause to anyone else.

You ever used a web site and gone "man, I wish this was standards-based"? Guess what - Mono IS standards based. Unlike, say, Adobe Flash, it's a proper published, implementable standard. There is zero technical merit to the "remove Mono" discussion. And the decision has been made, by Mark Shuttleworth, how Ubuntu should proceed. You know what "dictator for life" means, yes?

While you're on the Freedom Train, how about chasing some genuinely non-free (rather than hypocritically singled-out non-free) things like binary graphics drivers, or media codec support, or the flash plugin, or non-free fonts? Hell, you might get some traction waving the "no Free software!" anti-Mono flag to the gNewSense crowd (or whatever they're called these days).


You might want to actually read those ECMA/ISO terms before you make incorrect assertions about what they do and do not forbid. In specific you should direct your research towards RAND, and what it does and doesn't allow.

Also, all the things that aren't being 'hypocritically singled-out' also happen to be absent from the default Ubuntu install. In fact, the only thing you've proved is that Mono is being given extra privileges.

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Wow, by that logic Bill Gates must be multiple times smarter than Mark and Linus combined... ;)

It also makes the Walton family members substantially smarter than Stephen Hawkins.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 06:11 PM
You might want to actually read those ECMA/ISO terms before you make incorrect assertions about what they do and do not forbid. In specific you should direct your research towards RAND, and what it does and doesn't allow.

Also, all the things that aren't being 'hypocritically singled-out' also happen to be absent from the default Ubuntu install. In fact, the only thing you've proved is that Mono is being given extra privileges.

Ubuntu doesn't support double-clicking. You heard it here first, folks

Mr. Picklesworth
August 7th, 2008, 06:18 PM
With Mono, microsoft can single out a specific target without touching others: Linux.

I can assure you, Linux does not use Mono. Whatever sick kernel tree you are using, I ask that you please abandon it at once.
The only group that can be hurt by Mono getting blasted is Novel and software that directly uses Mono like Banshee. The folks at Novel know well how to handle themselves in this situation, and it would undoubtedly turn out fine.

Yes, Ubuntu packages it as a dependency of F-Spot, Tomboy etc. because it is necessary. Ubuntu is about being user friendly, which also means providing the best end user software instead of being tied up on minor details like the language that software is written in.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 7th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Here is a question:

If the Mono runtime was directly connected to applications written in it -- that is, the Mono program was distributed as real machine code with the Mono VM contained within like a Windows exe generated by Flash -- would you still care?

If there was not a "mono-runtime" package in the repositories, with the dependency instead met individually by each (then far huger) application written in the language, what would your thought be?

grndrush
August 7th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Ubuntu is about being user friendly, which also means providing the best end user software instead of being tied up on minor details like the language that software is written in.Not sure a lawyer would call IP violations against one of the largest and wealthiest (and lawyer-laden) firms in existence, "minor details"...the Devil really IS in those details.

Not that I'm worried about this specific case, but a LOT of people seem to feel that just because there's a large FOSS movement underway today, firms that market non-FOSS code are either unethical, or operating under an outdated or irrelevant section of the law. Nothing could be further from the truth, and M$ was one of the 1st to prove it: Did Netscape and/or Opera stop charging for their browsers the moment M$ announced IE would now be available for what it was actually worth (i.e., FREE)? Nope.

You won't find a bigger FOSS fan than I - but I'm glad the people who wrote the software that keeps the Shuttle fleet flying and the ISS orbiting were well-paid, personally. :)

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 06:55 PM
If there was not a "mono-runtime" package in the repositories, with the dependency instead met individually by each (then far huger) application written in the language, what would your thought be?

It would be the same.

My fear is that all these great apps will be written in Mono (and by extension competing apps will begin to grow stale and die). Then, once a good deal of our OSes usability is based on Mono apps, we will be stripped of our ability to use these apps reverting our OS to a shell of it's former self. We'll be using a rhythmbox that hasn't seen an update in 9 months, a gThumb that has been on the same version for more than a year, etc.

I'm not saying that I foresee that exact situation, I'm just illustrating the worst case scenario.

saulgoode
August 7th, 2008, 06:59 PM
And it should be noted that the 1000-or-so Debian Developers behind the project raised absolutely no objection to including standards-based Free Software in their distribution.
It should be noted that Debian does not include Mono in their Gnome Desktop Environment and neither do they plan to include it (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484121) in their next release. Since Debian developers go out of their way to strip Mono from 'gnome-desktop-environment' (as provided by the GNOME project), I am left wondering if your statement accurately represents that there has been "absolutely no objection". Or perhaps you meant to imply that Debian developers don't consider Mono to be "standards-based Free Software".

Twitch6000
August 7th, 2008, 07:03 PM
You put a $ in MS, therefore (IMO) your argumunt has little meret from the get-go. Add this to your small post cound and all alarms are yelling "troll!". Btw, just so you know, mono is actually released under the GPL, LGPL and the MIT license. If applications happen to be based on mono, I don't see why you should hold that against them. Next thing you will be asking is for wine to be removed from the repos!

Couldn't have said it better myself :).

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Just to clarify a few things, I'm not a FOSS zealot. I'm actually a Flash developer. I really could care less what people use. I think most people in this argument are in a similar.

Asking the question "Is Mono patent encumbered?" does not mean I hate Microsoft or even disagree with the use of Mono. Even if someone could definitively prove Mono is patent encumbered I still wouldn't disagree with people's desire to use it.

My comments are purely academic. I simply want to know what the status is with Mono and patents.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 07:17 PM
It should be noted that Debian does not include Mono in their Gnome Desktop Environment and neither do they plan to include it (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484121) in their next release. Since Debian developers go out of their way to strip Mono from 'gnome-desktop-environment' (as provided by the GNOME project), I am left wondering if your statement accurately represents that there has been "absolutely no objection". Or perhaps you meant to imply that Debian developers don't consider Mono to be "standards-based Free Software".

They consider the 55 MiB dependency chain to be too large for inclusion on CD1. Any other reasoning you hear is likely a lie made up by the tinfoil hat enthusiasts of certain schizophrenic blogs. "Stripped" also implies "removed", which is not true - it was not included, for the noted reason.

Work is ongoing to reduce Tomboy's dependency chain further. As it stands, Tomboy itself is significantly less bloated than, say, Gedit - some flaws in the Mono dependency tracking push the total dependency chain past it, comparing both applications against a slightly modified gnome-core

cardinals_fan
August 7th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Your argument that MS does not consider Linux a threat is completely incorrect. Surely you've read one of the numerous recent comments by Ballmer where he says open source is Microsoft's number 1 threat (above even Apple).
Open source != Linux. They're probably much more worried about OpenOffice and any program that uses open formats by default.

The fact these apps have been made with Mono only means one thing to me: Mono developers tend to think of their users first. They have found a nice platform to work with. If MS decides to kill these projects as they are (and allow me not to take that for granted as many of you seem to be doing), nothing prevents these fine developers to devote their efforts to another framework.

In other words, it seems there exists a Mono style and culture, similar to what happens at the Mac (you'll have a hard time finding an ugly Mono or Mac app), which I like a lot, because they take care of the small details non-programmers care for. They absolutely respect non-geeks needs. Something not so many can proudly say. They don't put a "g" or a "k" in front of every app's name because that's ridiculous. They don't ask the user to learn complicated compression strings (Rythmbox LAME string anyone?), they don't expect people to focus on anything else but the task at hand and they don't expect the user to RTFM. If these fine developers are forced to abandon Mono (which, again, I seriously doubt), they'll take their elegance and design anywhere else.

While that supposed threat from MS is nowhere near, may the Mono devs keep their brilliant work.

Jee, I might even start learning Mono one of these days!!
I agree with some of this, but I reach a different conclusion. Most of these Mono apps are resource-heavy and are lacking in terms of options - just like most Apple apps.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Most of these Mono apps are resource-heavy and are lacking in terms of options - just like most Apple apps.

and most Python apps

fluteflute
August 7th, 2008, 07:37 PM
It should be noted that Debian does not include Mono in their Gnome Desktop Environment and neither do they plan to include it (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=484121) in their next release. Since Debian developers go out of their way to strip Mono from 'gnome-desktop-environment' (as provided by the GNOME project), I am left wondering if your statement accurately represents that there has been "absolutely no objection". Or perhaps you meant to imply that Debian developers don't consider Mono to be "standards-based Free Software".
The reason Debian decided not to include it in the basic Gnome install was it would add an extra 50MB to the CD. In no way did they go out of their way to remove it. For example it is recommended by the gnome package.

beoba
August 7th, 2008, 07:37 PM
[14:35:45] <directhex> i'll work on a patch if you reply to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5542944

OKAY HERES A REPLY: Iced coffee is pretty neat

That said, I think clarification on potential legal issues is strongly needed before Mono apps can really become first-class citizens on the Linux Desktop. However, packages should continue to be easily available for anybody who wants them.

In other words, I don't think it should be treated any differently to eg MPlayer or VLC.

cardinals_fan
August 7th, 2008, 07:39 PM
and most Python apps
I wouldn't agree with that. Many Python apps are perfectly minimal.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 7th, 2008, 07:40 PM
>If there was not a "mono-runtime" package in the repositories, with the dependency instead met individually by each (then far huger) application written in the language, what would your thought be?

It would be the same.

What, then, makes this any different from the thousands of other applications built on possibly shaky legal grounds, where the debated portions are compiled into the core of those applications?
What about Nautilus' default for opening files being a double click? (Which is a bad idea anyway and should be changed to single click because the double click idea is terribly inconsistent and produces all sorts of problems with confused users not knowing when not to double click).
What about the Monty Python references in Python's documentation?
What about tsclient looking disturbingly similar to the remote desktop connection setup in Windows (http://blandname.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/rdp6-sshot-51.png) (and quite unlike the rest of GNOME)?
What about the patents Microsoft threatens to have been infringed upon, for example by OpenOffice?
What about the bizarre software patents we don't know about?

For bonus points, someone explain why the above are the distributor's (Ubuntu's) problem and not the developer's, and why Ubuntu should deprive itself of useful tools like tsclient and OpenOffice as a result.

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Open source != Linux. They're probably much more worried about OpenOffice and any program that uses open formats by default.



They're worried about OOo, Firefox and Linux. The specifically extended the life of XP for low end devices because they consider the proliferation of Linux on low end netbooks to be a real threat.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 08:01 PM
I wouldn't agree with that. Many Python apps are perfectly minimal.

http://www.meebey.net/jaws/?gadget=Blog&action=SingleView&id=Hello_World_how_small_can_you_get

Python apps come across as smaller, due to the runtime being helpfully included in the core gnome dependencies. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would cause Mono apps to have apparently smaller per-app dependencies if the core framework were already included?

In absolute terms, Tomboy is still smaller than Gedit. Banshee smaller than Rhythmbox, as installed on a minimal system

Just saying.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 08:16 PM
http://www.meebey.net/jaws/?gadget=Blog&action=SingleView&id=Hello_World_how_small_can_you_get

Python apps come across as smaller, due to the runtime being helpfully included in the core gnome dependencies. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would cause Mono apps to have apparently smaller per-app dependencies if the core framework were already included?

In absolute terms, Tomboy is still smaller than Gedit. Banshee smaller than Rhythmbox, as installed on a minimal system

Just saying.

Oh, and here's a fascinating graph.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=python

Mono's only 69x faster than Python in some benches, it sucks :'(

cardinals_fan
August 7th, 2008, 08:25 PM
http://www.meebey.net/jaws/?gadget=Blog&action=SingleView&id=Hello_World_how_small_can_you_get

Python apps come across as smaller, due to the runtime being helpfully included in the core gnome dependencies. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would cause Mono apps to have apparently smaller per-app dependencies if the core framework were already included?

In absolute terms, Tomboy is still smaller than Gedit. Banshee smaller than Rhythmbox, as installed on a minimal system

Just saying.
Very interesting. However, all the best known Mono apps (Tomboy, F-Spot, GNOME-Do, etc.) are very resource hungry for me.

Python being a core GNOME dependency is irrelevant because I don't have GNOME installed.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 08:51 PM
Very interesting. However, all the best known Mono apps (Tomboy, F-Spot, GNOME-Do, etc.) are very resource hungry for me.

Python being a core GNOME dependency is irrelevant because I don't have GNOME installed.

Excellent. It's a fair test then.

Fresh Debian Sid debootstrap:


mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install f-spot | grep ^Need
Need to get 68.9MB of archives. After unpacking 224MB will be used.
mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install gthumb2 | grep ^Need
Need to get 55.5MB of archives. After unpacking 183MB will be used.


mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install banshee | grep ^Need
Need to get 75.2MB of archives. After unpacking 243MB will be used.
mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install rhythmbox | grep ^Need
Need to get 75.2MB of archives. After unpacking 248MB will be used.


mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install cowbell | grep ^Need
Need to get 33.4MB of archives. After unpacking 103MB will be used.
mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install musiclibrarian | grep ^Need
Need to get 36.4MB of archives. After unpacking 117MB will be used.


mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install gnome-do | grep ^Need
Need to get 59.4MB of archives. After unpacking 191MB will be used.
mortos:/tmp# aptitude --without-recommends install gnome-launch-box | grep ^Need
Need to get 51.6MB of archives. After unpacking 166MB will be used.

Could it be, that on a fresh system, the difference in "bloat" between Mono and non-Mono apps is, on average, nothing?

Nah... I mean, if it wasn't down to space, then it might depend only on which app was best as to which were included.

cardinals_fan
August 7th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Could it be, that on a fresh system, the difference in "bloat" between Mono and non-Mono apps is, on average, nothing?

Nah... I mean, if it wasn't down to space, then it might depend only on which app was best as to which were included.
"Bloat" doesn't just mean the physical disk space used. It also applies to RAM and CPU usage. gThumb is much faster (in my very informal tests) than F-Spot.

Anyway, FOR ME, gThumb just works better. It's stabler, faster, more configurable, and does just what I want it to do.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 09:09 PM
"Bloat" doesn't just mean the physical disk space used. It also applies to RAM and CPU usage. gThumb is much faster (in my very informal tests) than F-Spot.

Anyway, FOR ME, gThumb just works better. It's stabler, faster, more configurable, and does just what I want it to do.

The benchmark figures I linked to above would agree with you - skewing slightly towards python for memory, and HEAVILY towards mono for speed, for the general case. Out of those two languages. Of course, pure C apps win, but frankly, writing GUI apps in C is unpleasant and uneccessary these days

For the specific case, F-Spot and GThumb are different apps. GThumb is a file manager. It stores metadata in per-folder XML, working on a file-based paradigm. As a result, per-album searching is slow, but "general case" is fast for each folder.

F-Spot has a large global SQLite database, a bit like RhythmBox for music - meaning the overall app is "bulkier", but better at searches etc (as all data is always available for indexed searching)

lamalex
August 7th, 2008, 09:20 PM
If you hate mono, you're clearly not a developer. C# is a great language, and mono is an awesome framework to develop on. Some of the best apps for the GNOME desktop have been developed with C#/mono, GNOME Do, Banshee, Tomboy, and f-spot. Stop spreading FUD.

saulgoode
August 7th, 2008, 10:19 PM
http://www.meebey.net/jaws/?gadget=Blog&action=SingleView&id=Hello_World_how_small_can_you_get

Python apps come across as smaller, due to the runtime being helpfully included in the core gnome dependencies. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would cause Mono apps to have apparently smaller per-app dependencies if the core framework were already included?

Python is an Ubuntu dependency. Even if GNOME didn't require it, Python would still be included in Ubuntu. For your argument to apply, C#/Mono would have to completely supplant Python, not be an additional runtime library.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Python is an Ubuntu dependency. Even if GNOME didn't require it, Python would still be included in Ubuntu. For your argument to apply, C#/Mono would have to completely supplant Python, not be an additional runtime library.

"Completely" supplant? Ubuntu only includes apps written in Python now?

bobbocanfly
August 7th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Yes, Mono should be allowed in Ubuntu, by default. That way we can have Banshee installed by default, which (IMO) is a much better application than Rhythmbox. Also F-Spot isnt half bad.

Polygon
August 7th, 2008, 10:46 PM
fspot sucks.

anyway, mono is fine. there is no evidence that anything bad is in it.

also, recurring discussion. this debate has been done to death.

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 10:54 PM
Yes, Mono should be allowed in Ubuntu, by default. That way we can have Banshee installed by default, which (IMO) is a much better application than Rhythmbox. Also F-Spot isnt half bad.

Feature parity isn't quite there between the apps - the music stores are missing, and there's only a DAAP client (no server). However, Banshee has some very nice features - such as the ability to import from a DAAP server, a much smarter tray icon, and seemingly a more active plugin community. I've switched to it myself though, and added it to my Hardy repository

saulgoode
August 7th, 2008, 11:02 PM
"Completely" supplant?
http://dictionary.die.net/completely
http://dictionary.die.net/supplant


Ubuntu only includes apps written in Python now?
Whatever would cause you to surmise that?

directhex
August 7th, 2008, 11:25 PM
Whatever would cause you to surmise that?

"For your argument to apply, C#/Mono would have to completely supplant Python, not be an additional runtime library."

There are an awful lot of additional runtime libraries around. There are an awful lot of runtime libraries already installed on your system. Why does Ubuntu favour Python, when the underlying Debian system already contains Perl instead? Surely Python is a wasteful extra runtime library? No? Well, since Ubuntu depends on it entirely, and you're only allowed one at once, there's no Perl in Ubuntu, right? Oh, wait, yeah, there is.

People use what they feel is an appropriate language for what they're doing. When building a distribution which combines components written by thousands of different people with thousands of different favourites, it's inevitable that you end up with a silly number of language frameworks installed. Tcl on a standard Ubuntu desktop? Check!

On a bare system, there's simply no weight against Mono apps - they just don't consume a significant amount of space compared to other frameworks. The figures show pretty clearly that the "core" Mono framework does not pull in any significant volume of packages - and as each Mono app is added, the overhead shrinks, as the number of common dependencies grows. That's just common sense. On a less bare system, since Ubuntu ships a pair of Mono apps by default, the dependency chain for adding, say, Cowbell is minute.

Entirely comparable to Python equivalents

geoken
August 7th, 2008, 11:40 PM
What, then, makes this any different from the thousands of other applications built on possibly shaky legal grounds, where the debated portions are compiled into the core of those applications?
What about Nautilus' default for opening files being a double click? (Which is a bad idea anyway and should be changed to single click because the double click idea is terribly inconsistent and produces all sorts of problems with confused users not knowing when not to double click).
What about the Monty Python references in Python's documentation?
What about tsclient looking disturbingly similar to the remote desktop connection setup in Windows (http://blandname.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/rdp6-sshot-51.png) (and quite unlike the rest of GNOME)?
What about the patents Microsoft threatens to have been infringed upon, for example by OpenOffice?
What about the bizarre software patents we don't know about?

For bonus points, someone explain why the above are the distributor's (Ubuntu's) problem and not the developer's, and why Ubuntu should deprive itself of useful tools like tsclient and OpenOffice as a result.

I understand the point you're trying to make, if we tried to completely avoid patents at all cost we'd be left in a state of paranoid paralysis (from a development standpoint).

But at the same time we can't say 'to hell with IP' and include the Mp3 decoders by default and create an OSX knock-off theme. My point is that although we can't stop developing out of a fear of infringing on IP, that doesn't necessarily mean we should recklessly go forward ignoring the concept in it's entirety.

You're trying to make it a black and white issue and it isn't. Even in situations were a patent exists it's validity may be arguable. This is definitely a shade of gray argument.

saulgoode
August 8th, 2008, 01:07 AM
"For your argument to apply, C#/Mono would have to completely supplant Python, not be an additional runtime library."

There are an awful lot of additional runtime libraries around. There are an awful lot of runtime libraries already installed on your system. Why does Ubuntu favour Python, when the underlying Debian system already contains Perl instead? Surely Python is a wasteful extra runtime library? No? Well, since Ubuntu depends on it entirely, and you're only allowed one at once, there's no Perl in Ubuntu, right? Oh, wait, yeah, there is.
I suspect the reason Python is the recommended scripting language has to do with its contribution towards earning Mr Shuttleworth his fortune (not to diminish the altruism of his funding the startup of Ubuntu but the company he sold for hundreds of millions of dollars was built upon Free software, and Python was employed to great benefit therein).

Personally, Python is the last programming I would choose for anything; nonetheless it is an essential component of Ubuntu -- try to remove it and you will receive, "WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! ... You are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'".

Perl is relatively lightweight (just over 3Mb last time I checked) and is basically an essential component of GNU/Linux development. While it is perhaps feasible to remove Perl from the default installation, it would still need to be on the install CD (as part of build-essential).

Earlier in this thread, you stated that Mono had a 55Mb dependency chain. Is this number the size taken up on the CD? I had previously seen estimates of about 15Mb for the Mono runtime components -- which seems more reasonable (and comparable to Python's packaged size). Perhaps you could provide a definitive answer to the issue of Mono package CD, harddisk, and memory footprints (or am I mistaken in understanding that your are the Ubuntu package maintainer for Mono?). In this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=594767) I saw claims ranging from about 8Mb to as much as 70Mb (and it was rather confusing as to what components/applications were included in the evaluations). IMO, it is the space taken up on the CD which matters most; with RAM requirements a distant second, and harddrive space of rather minimal significance.

Also, could you clarify whether Ubuntu includes non-ECMA-covered components in its base install. I have often seen the claim made that only the ECMA-covered technologies are included, yet I see Windows.forms in Ubuntu Main. Since the Mono Project FAQ makes the distinction between between ECMA-covered and "less-indemnified" parts, it would be nice to know the makeup of what's included by default in Ubuntu.

cardinals_fan
August 8th, 2008, 01:25 AM
The benchmark figures I linked to above would agree with you - skewing slightly towards python for memory, and HEAVILY towards mono for speed, for the general case. Out of those two languages. Of course, pure C apps win, but frankly, writing GUI apps in C is unpleasant and uneccessary these days

For the specific case, F-Spot and GThumb are different apps. GThumb is a file manager. It stores metadata in per-folder XML, working on a file-based paradigm. As a result, per-album searching is slow, but "general case" is fast for each folder.

F-Spot has a large global SQLite database, a bit like RhythmBox for music - meaning the overall app is "bulkier", but better at searches etc (as all data is always available for indexed searching)
C apps for the win!

...if you don't mind painful coding :)

Anyway, gThumb performs the same functions as F-Spot. It allows me to tag my images and then filter them by the tags. It also includes remarkably decent (if basic) editing tools, an awesome slideshow, and a small memory footprint.

/off-topic photo organizer discussion

loell
August 8th, 2008, 02:03 AM
C apps for the win!


Forever!! \\:D/

it always has been, and will stay that way.. :KS

BLTicklemonster
August 8th, 2008, 02:58 AM
I've got over 4 posts, and I spell it Microslop, Micro$oft, Moft, etc, and don't see any reason not to. It's my preference to tease, why ought it not be other's?

And wtf is mono anyway? It's contagious, right?

cardinals_fan
August 8th, 2008, 04:34 AM
Forever!! \\:D/

it always has been, and will stay that way.. :KS
Obviously :)

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 07:30 AM
Earlier in this thread, you stated that Mono had a 55Mb dependency chain. Is this number the size taken up on the CD? I had previously seen estimates of about 15Mb for the Mono runtime components -- which seems more reasonable (and comparable to Python's packaged size). Perhaps you could provide a definitive answer to the issue of Mono package CD, harddisk, and memory footprints (or am I mistaken in understanding that your are the Ubuntu package maintainer for Mono?). In this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=594767) I saw claims ranging from about 8Mb to as much as 70Mb (and it was rather confusing as to what components/applications were included in the evaluations). IMO, it is the space taken up on the CD which matters most; with RAM requirements a distant second, and harddrive space of rather minimal significance.

The full dependency chain for Tomboy is ~50 MiB on disk (less than 20 meg of packages), on top of a Debian gnome-desktop-environment. See http://monoport.com/36535 for detailed analysis. We're currently evaluating ways to shrink that further (Tomboy is a .NET 2.0 app and pulls in 2.0 dependencies, but many core Mono tools are 1.1, so pull that in too, and inclusion of BOTH for a 2.0-only app wastes a few meg of space)


Also, could you clarify whether Ubuntu includes non-ECMA-covered components in its base install. I have often seen the claim made that only the ECMA-covered technologies are included, yet I see Windows.forms in Ubuntu Main. Since the Mono Project FAQ makes the distinction between between ECMA-covered and "less-indemnified" parts, it would be nice to know the makeup of what's included by default in Ubuntu.

Nope. See the list in the above link. I'l produce a list of Mono-related apps in the standard Ubuntu install later today - but WinForms isn't in it.

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 10:10 AM
I'l produce a list of Mono-related apps in the standard Ubuntu install later today

Okay, as promised.

Adding ubuntu-desktop to ubuntu-minimal EXCLUDING MONO APPS adds about 500 meg of packages, 2000 meg on disk. That's all the usual apps, like OOo, firefox, and so on. Basically, every package in "ubuntu-desktop"'s Depends: or Recommends: (recommends ARE installed, considering FF and OOo are in here and not Depends:) except "f-spot" and "tomboy"

Adding tomboy and f-spot on top of that requires 16.2MB of packages (59.6MB on disk). The package list is as follows:

binfmt-support: Support for extra binary formats
cli-common: common files between all CLI packages
f-spot: personal photo management application
libart2.0-cil: CLI binding for libart 2.3
libflickrnet2.1.5-cil: Flickr.Net API Library
libgconf2.0-cil: CLI binding for GConf 2.20
libglade2.0-cil: CLI binding for the Glade libraries 2.6
libglib2.0-cil: CLI binding for the GLib utility library 2.12
libglitz-glx1: Glitz OpenGL library GLX backend
libglitz1: Glitz OpenGL image compositing library
libgmime2.2-cil: CLI binding for the MIME library
libgnome-keyring1.0-cil: CLI library to access the GNOME Keyring daemon
libgnome-vfs2.0-cil: CLI binding for GnomeVFS 2.20
libgnome2.0-cil: CLI binding for GNOME 2.20
libgtk2.0-cil: CLI binding for the GTK+ toolkit 2.12
libgtkhtml3.16-cil: CLI binding for GtkHTML 3.16
libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil: GTK# frontend library for Mono.Addins
libmono-addins0.2-cil: addin framework for extensible CLI applications/libraries
libmono-cairo1.0-cil: Mono Cairo library
libmono-cairo2.0-cil: Mono Cairo library
libmono-corlib1.0-cil: Mono core library (1.0)
libmono-corlib2.0-cil: Mono core library (2.0)
libmono-data-tds1.0-cil: Mono Data library
libmono-data-tds2.0-cil: Mono Data Library
libmono-i18n1.0-cil: Mono I18N libraries (1.0)
libmono-i18n2.0-cil: Mono I18N libraries (2.0)
libmono-security1.0-cil: Mono Security library
libmono-security2.0-cil: Mono Security library
libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil: Mono SharpZipLib library
libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil: Mono SharpZipLib library
libmono-sqlite2.0-cil: Mono Sqlite library
libmono-system-data1.0-cil: Mono System.Data library
libmono-system-data2.0-cil: Mono System.Data Library
libmono-system-web1.0-cil: Mono System.Web library
libmono-system-web2.0-cil: Mono System.Web Library
libmono-system1.0-cil: Mono System libraries (1.0)
libmono-system2.0-cil: Mono System libraries (2.0)
libmono0: libraries for the Mono JIT
libmono1.0-cil: Mono libraries (1.0)
libmono2.0-cil: Mono libraries (2.0)
libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil: CLI implementation of D-Bus (GLib mainloop integration)
libndesk-dbus1.0-cil: CLI implementation of D-Bus
libsqlite0: SQLite shared library
mono-common: common files for Mono
mono-gac: Mono GAC tool
mono-jit: fast CLI JIT/AOT compiler for Mono
mono-runtime: Mono runtime
sqlite: command line interface for SQLite
sqlite3: A command line interface for SQLite 3
tomboy: desktop note taking program using Wiki style links

A bunch of those are general C libraries (e.g. SQLite, Glitz), about half are Mono-specific technologies like GTK#, Gnome#, Mono.Addins. About 10% are general open-source .NET libraries like SharpZipLib and FlickrNet. The rest is general .NET assemblies. corlib and System are ECMA-335. That leaves System.Data (ADO.NET) and System.Web, in the packages libmono-system-web2.0-cil, libmono-system-web1.0-cil, libmono-system-data1.0-cil and libmono-system-data2.0-cil as non-ECMA, non-Mono-developed libraries (i.e. Microsoft technologies not covered by ECMA-334 or ECMA-335).

As per the Mono FAQ:

Mono's strategy for dealing with any potential issues that might arise with ASP.NET, ADO.NET or Windows.Forms is: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

Which is pretty much the same attitude the kernel developers have about infringing code in the kernel.

Modplanman
August 8th, 2008, 11:27 AM
facts, not words (even those of a CEO):
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_rel_q4_07.mspx
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/23/Hnmsclimbs_1.html
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5000
their revenue is increasing ;)

Revenue is not the same as profit. Improve your bizniss skillz.

Revenue does not take into account expenses. Revenue might increase if a company releases a new more expensive product, but that doesn't take into account how much that product cost to make, which might exceed how much it is sold for, or they make less profit on it than the older product.

Not to mention the market share of MS has been slowly chipped away in numerous areas. Desktop is not the only marketplace, like servers where Linux has the strong hold along with other areas like mobile devices. MS does not have a business purely based on the desktop. For years they've been trying to become dominant in teh intarwebz and have keen eyes on anything that might be able to have an operating system on it.

Basically:

Mono is an open source implementation of a Microsoft developed technology. Microsoft is still in overall control - mono is merely a way to implement it, not replace it or hand over the reigns to open standards. It is only the specific implementation that comes under the GPL, not the overall direction and control of what do with it and where to take it. It is still bound by what Microsoft does and wants. I'm not going to go to the extreme that some people are painting and say that MS might try and sue everyone, but the buck still stops with them.

.NET is not an open standard like we are supposed to be trying to move towards, and trying to paint everything as being encumbered by patents somewhere is merely a vindication of why the FOSS movement exists in the first place - to keep technology and probably most notably the web open.

P.S. Simply using something is not a patent violation - only if the thing I'm using has been sworn in without patent holders consent or whatever else. If I use an MP3 file, if the codec is already paid for or given out for free, then I am not violating patents. Posting something on a forum? I am not violating patents. The one who implements and actually "steals" the original patent protected technology is the one at fault, not me as the user, unless they are one in the same.

People, actually read up and use your logic for these things.

kirsis
August 8th, 2008, 12:07 PM
Basically:

Mono is an open source implementation of a Microsoft developed technology. Microsoft is still in overall control - mono is merely a way to implement it, not replace it or hand over the reigns to open standards. It is only the specific implementation that comes under the GPL, not the overall direction and control of what do with it and where to take it. It is still bound by what Microsoft does and wants. I'm not going to go to the extreme that some people are painting and say that MS might try and sue everyone, but the buck still stops with them.


What does it matter if MS is in charge of the direction .NET takes?

Underneath the APIs the technology is just an OS-agnostic runtime environment. If it changes for good/worse on Windows, it changes for good/worse on Linux.

Besides, the Mono devs aren't obligated to blindly mimick .NET or forbidden to "expand and enhance" :)



.NET is not an open standard


Yes it is. An open standard means it is publicly available and implementable by anyone, which the core of .NET is.

data2005
August 8th, 2008, 12:19 PM
1) .Net is patent-encumbered, so is Mono.
Not to debate here is wether other stuff is also patent-encumbered - it doesn't change the fact that Mono is.

2) Microsoft lets Novell continue to build an unofficial implementation (probably so not having to argue later in court it was doing that itself and releasing Mono intentionally as GPL-Software).
Their choice of GPLv2 is very clever, because it has an achilles-verse that it doesn't deal with patents like GPLv3 does.
So with GPLv2 it is possibly to release code which is patent-encumbered and let it get used and spread, which wouldn't be allowed by GPLv3!!!

This complicates the whole subject, since from then on FOSS-land is not only divided into BSD/GPL, the GPL-side is further divided into understanding the difference of GPLv2/GPLv3.

(I presume the majority of FOSS-users quit right there in understanding why the mantra GPL=good software nowadays doesn't mean automatically "good" software although having been told for years it is so: regarding patents GPLv2 is not efficient!!!)

3) Novell currently has assigned 35-40 employees (ironically being able to pay them with the money Microsoft paid Novell for the contract - that alone is unbelievable illogic from an outstanding perspective - why would you pay another party for using your IP and you promising not to sue them?!) working on implementing a basic environment to get Mono attached to Gnome and/or as much other (vital) parts of a typical Linux-distribution as possible - for now the result is Tomboy and Co., but wait another year or two - with this kind of manpower working AGAINST other technologies to take the desktop further...

4) microsoft can sit back, watch the progress, and at anytime point to its .NET-IP and demand compensation for usage - this is so much easier than to enforce something stupid than the doubleclick - since in the perception of the industry (analysts, etc.) and the common people, this reeasoning will be very easy to argue: MS innovated and owns .NET and Mono is a complete clone building on its patented IP!

MS will sue a distributor for not having signed a contract for exactly one reason:
To halt distribution of all Mono-dependancies as long as the case isn't decided in court and therefore reverting a heavily Mono-dependant distribution to stone-age...

Any argument, that has nothing to do with the clarification of those 4 points (arguments like: other companies also having patents, Microsoft never sued before...), is pure smoke-tactic.

A dsitributor probably has to deal with many patent-issues, but starting to focus on a potentially very high risk target and diminishing its causalities while still possible seems a very logical thing to do - turning a blind eye seems not.

geoken
August 8th, 2008, 01:09 PM
Also, to add to what Data2005 said, arguments about how good the programing language is in it's own right are beside the point. No one is arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't include Mono because it's a crappy programming language, I think most accept the fact that it's a good language and people like to write in it.

arito
August 8th, 2008, 01:21 PM
An interesting view on the matter:
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 01:22 PM
1) .Net is patent-encumbered, so is Mono.
Not to debate here is wether other stuff is also patent-encumbered - it doesn't change the fact that Mono is.

mscorlib, System, System.XML, and System.Threading.Parallel (ECMA-355) come with a globally applicable, royalty-free (i.e. no payment can be demanded) patent license. Are you arguing that this is not the case?


2) Microsoft lets Novell continue to build an unofficial implementation (probably so not having to argue later in court it was doing that itself and releasing Mono intentionally as GPL-Software).
Their choice of GPLv2 is very clever, because it has an achilles-verse that it doesn't deal with patents like GPLv3 does.
So with GPLv2 it is possibly to release code which is patent-encumbered and let it get used and spread, which wouldn't be allowed by GPLv3!!!

This complicates the whole subject, since from then on FOSS-land is not only divided into BSD/GPL, the GPL-side is further divided into understanding the difference of GPLv2/GPLv3.

(I presume the majority of FOSS-users quit right there in understanding why the mantra GPL=good software nowadays doesn't mean automatically "good" software although having been told for years it is so: regarding patents GPLv2 is not efficient!!!)

You DO know Mono isn't a big monolithic chunk of GPLv2, yes?


The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (GPL).
The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (LGPL 2.0).
The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 license.

And at any rate, the license was not selected by Microsoft - and work on Mono started long before Novell's indemnity deal for their corporate customers. Or before GPLv3 was finished, too.

You DO know the kernel will remain v2, and not move to v3, right? Are you planning on removing that, since it's known to violate patents in aseveral places?


3) Novell currently has assigned 35-40 employees (ironically being able to pay them with the money Microsoft paid Novell for the contract - that alone is unbelievable illogic from an outstanding perspective - why would you pay another party for using your IP and you promising not to sue them?!) working on implementing a basic environment to get Mono attached to Gnome and/or as much other (vital) parts of a typical Linux-distribution as possible - for now the result is Tomboy and Co., but wait another year or two - with this kind of manpower working AGAINST other technologies to take the desktop further...

Novell is comfortably profitable without Microsoft, and again, has been working on Mono technologies since long before the patent indeminification deal. At no point has Novell admitted that ANY specific technology in SLES/SLED is infringing (yes, that includes Mono), and that much is documented on the Microsoft website.

Novell has done a significant amount of work for Free software in general - it's not actually a deep dark cave where people rub their hands and discuss eliminating the evil open-source people for fun. And there are more than simply Novell employees working on Mono - it's one of the largest Free Software projects out there, and significant numbers of contributors help work on it. Not all of those are being paid evil Microsoft money made from dead babies. Conspiracy theories do not help advance your case.


4) microsoft can sit back, watch the progress, and at anytime point to its .NET-IP and demand compensation for usage - this is so much easier than to enforce something stupid than the doubleclick - since in the perception of the industry (analysts, etc.) and the common people, this reeasoning will be very easy to argue: MS innovated and owns .NET and Mono is a complete clone building on its patented IP!

MS will sue a distributor for not having signed a contract for exactly one reason:
To halt distribution of all Mono-dependancies as long as the case isn't decided in court and therefore reverting a heavily Mono-dependant distribution to stone-age...

How many distribution vendors have been sued for including fat32.ko ?


Any argument, that has nothing to do with the clarification of those 4 points (arguments like: other companies also having patents, Microsoft never sued before...), is pure smoke-tactic.

What does making stuff up count as?


A dsitributor probably has to deal with many patent-issues, but starting to focus on a potentially very high risk target and diminishing its causalities while still possible seems a very logical thing to do - turning a blind eye seems not.

A large Free Software project made by a lot of smart people, to an open specification covered by a royalty-free patent license, is high risk?

Whilst OOo (a Micosoft Office compatible desktop app used by everyone, based largely on reverse-engineering of Microsoft formats and with a ripped-off GUI from Microsoft Office XP) isn't?

eldragon
August 8th, 2008, 01:22 PM
i voted yes not because its got MS written all over it. but because each and every single app ive used that included mono. turned out to be really bloated, slow. and awfully sluggish (yes, im saying the same thing thrice)...


but not banned, just removed.

data2005
August 8th, 2008, 02:06 PM
mscorlib, System, System.XML, and System.Threading.Parallel (ECMA-355) come with a globally applicable, royalty-free (i.e. no payment can be demanded) patent license. Are you arguing that this is not the case?


Is this ECMA-355 ALL that Mono is made of or only part of the complete package?
By license, do you mean that RAND?



You DO know the kernel will remain v2, and not move to v3, right? Are you planning on removing that, since it's known to violate patents in aseveral places?


I do not discuss the kernel here, this is about Mono!
Let's deal with seperate matters seperate, okay?
You can't be under suspicion of beating your kids and say in court: Well, did you know other parents beat their kids, too?
So Smoke-tactics again...




At no point has Novell admitted that ANY specific technology in SLES/SLED is infringing (yes, that includes Mono), and that much is documented on the Microsoft website.

So they didn't admit = there is nothing FOR THEM to worry.

Again:
“Moonlight is usable for anyone on any distribution of Linux (redhat, ubuntu, etc.) — it is not limited to Novell as Mono is.”
-Brian Goldfarb [Microsoft]

What does that mean then???



And there are more than simply Novell employees working on Mono - it's one of the largest Free Software projects out there, and significant numbers of contributors help work on it.

Do you have anything other than a vaguely guess how many non-Novell members contribute DIRECTLY TO DEVELOP MONO (as opposed to merely using this stuff to develop other programs?).




Not all of those are being paid evil Microsoft money made from dead babies. Conspiracy theories do not help advance your case.

I hate to say it, but doesn't your comment look dumb in the light of how much "good" Microsoft has done to anything opposed to them in the past, ignoring conviction of EU with 500millions of fine, manipulating OOXML, the list goes on and on...
So any precaution with regards to Microsoft (not Novell!) of a possible threat of patent litigation is pure conspiracy???

You know IBM worked together with Microsoft on OS/2 before getting screwed over?



How many distribution vendors have been sued for including fat32.ko ?

It's not relevant if they didn't sue for this one, their record of ways to screw the competition mentioned above says otherwise, so smoke-tactics again...




What does making stuff up count as?

What exactly is made up?




A large Free Software project made by a lot of smart people, to an open specification covered by a royalty-free patent license, is high risk?

Was sueing IBM from SCO a dumb thing to do and therefore a high risk? Did that stop SCO from doing it? You think any white knight will step in if Microsoft will sue for example RedHat? Dream on...




Whilst OOo (a Micosoft Office compatible desktop app used by everyone, based largely on reverse-engineering of Microsoft formats and with a ripped-off GUI from Microsoft Office XP) isn't?

Well again the smoke: I don't say OOo isn't risky.
Only less optimal to sue and therefore less likely...
That doesn't take away from the fact from Mono being possibly the most lucrative target (and therefore risk) for Microsoft to be exploited.

geoken
August 8th, 2008, 02:17 PM
mscorlib, System, System.XML, and System.Threading.Parallel (ECMA-355) come with a globally applicable, royalty-free (i.e. no payment can be demanded) patent license. Are you arguing that this is not the case?




Yes, I'm arguing this is not the case. Can you please link to some facts stating otherwise that are a little more solid than a mailing list post which has since been deleted but resurrected through an internet archive. Bonus points if the statements come from an official source rather than the random comments of some developer.

Doesn't it worry you that the most solid piece of information the Mono team can dig up to prove the patent free nature of the ECMA covered portions of .NET consists of a mailing list post accessed through an internet archive? Even if the mailing list post hadn't been deleted, doesn't the completely un-binding nature of said comment worry you when you place your entire belief upon it?

saulgoode
August 8th, 2008, 02:30 PM
Directhex, thanks for the information. It is pretty much as I figured, but it is nice to have the facts presented. ... which brings me to the following


mscorlib, System, System.XML, and System.Threading.Parallel (ECMA-355) come with a globally applicable, royalty-free (i.e. no payment can be demanded) patent license. Are you arguing that this is not the case?
I have been unsuccessful in uncovering evidence of any such license. Could you provide a link?

geoken
August 8th, 2008, 02:33 PM
To add to what I said before, if MS had a single statement anywhere on it's official website regarding everyone's ability to use the technology this would be a non-issue. You'd think that their would be some mention, somewhere on their website which addressed this if it was in fact their official policy.

data2005
August 8th, 2008, 02:35 PM
An interesting view on the matter:
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono

This is a well put article.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 8th, 2008, 03:27 PM
Saying I'm okay with Mono existing and being available for support of good applications is not the same as saying I want everyone to use Mono. It should certainly not be a part of GNOME, for example; look at OpenOffice for an example of what happens to an open source project when it starts using a jigsaw puzzle of languages simply for the heck of it.

Further, I for one would prefer that people use Vala, but its time to shine is not quite yet. I believe Monodevelop 2.0 (a really damn good IDE) will have Vala language bindings, and ValIDE will hopefully be good in a while, too.

viduliya
August 8th, 2008, 05:14 PM
I am tired of having M$ crap shoved down my throat.:mad: I voted 'yes' just now and issued "sudo apt-get remove --purge mono-common" on all my Ubuntu machines.:) Thanks for making me aware of this.

smartboyathome
August 8th, 2008, 05:55 PM
I am tired of having M$ crap shoved down my throat.:mad: I voted 'yes' just now and issued "sudo apt-get remove --purge mono-common" on all my Ubuntu machines.:) Thanks for making me aware of this.

The only reason you hate it is because it is made by Microsoft. Well tell you what, Mono is implimenting the ECMA STANDARD, so it is not implimenting the version which is patented by MICROSOFT in Ubuntu. So don't get rid of it for everyone just because you think that everyone should just get Microsoft out of their lives.

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 06:11 PM
c apps for the win!



+10000

karellen
August 8th, 2008, 06:17 PM
Revenue is not the same as profit. Improve your bizniss skillz.

Revenue does not take into account expenses. Revenue might increase if a company releases a new more expensive product, but that doesn't take into account how much that product cost to make, which might exceed how much it is sold for, or they make less profit on it than the older product.

be it your way:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/biztech/vista-fuels-microsoft-profit-rises/2008/01/25/1201157632498.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080125/ai_n21218212
http://www.computerwire.com/companies/company/?pid=8ABE78BB-0732-4ACA-A41D-3012EBB1334D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-profit-boosted-vista-office/story.aspx?guid=%7B46D585CE-B7D5-4F18-A19F-7EA2202FC200%7D
not hard to see that MS profit increased, no matter how you want to put it. the profit from your - correct - definition
and for the rest, I agree

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 06:32 PM
I voted YES because the programs like Tomboy, F-Spot etc. can be replaced by non-Mono counterparts and frankly even if users do want programs installed such as Banshee could simply install them using the package manager and mono libraries could be installed automatically.
There is no clear cut info. about legalities of Mono so it is better safe than be sorry.

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 06:44 PM
I voted YES because the programs like Tomboy, F-Spot etc. can be replaced by non-Mono counterparts and frankly even if users do want programs installed such as Banshee could simply install them using the package manager and mono libraries could be installed automatically.

Are those counterparts as good?

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Are those counterparts as good?
I never use any of those software anyways.
But there is gThumb and lot of people like it. I like digiKam more but then it has very heavy KDE dependencies so including it in Ubuntu is out of question. Correct me if I am wrong.
And there may be something for Tomboy as well.

As for GnomeDo, I really like it but then it is not installed by default.

smartboyathome
August 8th, 2008, 07:05 PM
I never use any of those software anyways.
But there is gThumb and lot of people like it. I like digiKam more but then it has very heavy KDE dependencies so including it in Ubuntu is out of question. Correct me if I am wrong.
And there may be something for Tomboy as well.

As for GnomeDo, I really like it but then it is not installed by default.

Tomboy really doesn't have a counterpart which has the same feel and feature set as it. They all either have bad GUIs (imo), or not as many features. Tomboy is the best note taking app I have found in a while.

viduliya
August 8th, 2008, 07:05 PM
The only reason you hate it is because it is made by Microsoft. Well tell you what, Mono is implimenting the ECMA STANDARD, so it is not implimenting the version which is patented by MICROSOFT in Ubuntu. So don't get rid of it for everyone just because you think that everyone should just get Microsoft out of their lives.
Don't worry all you mono fans, I am only talking about my machines. I am not administering any machines used by others. I am not in the business of telling others how to use their computing resources unlike the way that I have been forced to deal with Microsoft software on occasion thanks to pinheads who refuse to see the better alternatives out there. I believe Ubuntu should leave mono packages in the repository for anyone who wish to install it. I don't want it installed by default and now that I know about this it will not be installed by default for me. I am not into carrying baggage I don't need. In my opinion .Net is only good to catch .Fish.

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 07:10 PM
Don't worry all you mono fans, I am only talking about my machines. I am not administering any machines used by others. I am not in the business of telling others how to use their computing resources unlike the way that I have been forced to deal with Microsoft software on occasion thanks to pinheads who refuse to see the better alternatives out there. I believe Ubuntu should leave mono packages in the repository for anyone who wish to install it. I don't want it installed by default and now that I know about this it will not be installed by default for me. I am not into carrying baggage I don't need. In my opinion .Net is only good to catch .Fish.

Things You Didn't Know Were Covered By Microsoft Patents, part one:

* ping
* HTTP
* SOAP
* TCP/IP v4

Join us next week for the exciting second part

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 07:15 PM
Things You Didn't Know Were Covered By Microsoft Patents, part one:

* ping
* HTTP
* SOAP
* TCP/IP v4

Join us next week for the exciting second part

Links please.

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Links please.

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 07:34 PM
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

But they are promising not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against anyone seemingly for those stuff. Is there a similar promise for Mono?

viduliya
August 8th, 2008, 07:43 PM
Things You Didn't Know Were Covered By Microsoft Patents, part one:

* ping
* HTTP
* SOAP
* TCP/IP v4

Join us next week for the exciting second part

Why should I care if they held the patent on fire and wheel too? I'm sure they can obtain those patents from the US patent office. Some patents are a true joke! It has been a lot of fun to read this thread but I think it is going to get much uglier so I will backoff and let Microsoft fans win (something inside told me to "let the wookie win"). :)

Obligatory statement: "You are right mono is the best thing since sliced bread and microsoft rocks!"

geoken
August 8th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Thanks for showing that page directhex. It shows that Microsoft already has a perfectly suitable method were they could, if they wanted, disclose the exact nature of .NET patents and their willingness to grant patent immunity.

Doesn't it stand to reason that MS would list the entire ECMA covered portion of .NET on that page if their official policy was to allow anyone to use it royalty free (as they do with the other code listed on that page)?

Xanatos Craven
August 8th, 2008, 08:23 PM
Obligatory statement: "You are right mono is the best thing since sliced bread and microsoft rocks!"
I can't spread butter on a rock and eat it, you insensitive clod!

WRT to patents Microsoft holds, most of which could probably be tossed out the window as prior art if they ever decide to stop bluffing and reveal them : *yawn*.

cardinals_fan
August 8th, 2008, 08:28 PM
Saying I'm okay with Mono existing and being available for support of good applications is not the same as saying I want everyone to use Mono. It should certainly not be a part of GNOME, for example; look at OpenOffice for an example of what happens to an open source project when it starts using a jigsaw puzzle of languages simply for the heck of it.

Further, I for one would prefer that people use Vala, but its time to shine is not quite yet. I believe Monodevelop 2.0 (a really damn good IDE) will have Vala language bindings, and ValIDE will hopefully be good in a while, too.
+1

I'm not much of a programmer at all, and I'm still impressed by Vala. That project is looking really good... :)

Mr. Picklesworth
August 8th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Geoken, you develop with Flash, so I am sure you can understand this. It would plain suck if Microsoft decided Flash posed too much danger to Silverlight and sabotaged it to ensure every Flash application would gradually get worse and worse to use on Windows. Why would you want to inflict that pain on people who choose to use Mono to develop applications?
Okay, it's a fair point that Flash is not included by default, but if there was a really good desktop application using Flash (eg: Media center with PVR functions), and Flash was not an obviously proprietary format, there is a fair chance of it happening.

Furthermore, I do not believe dropping support for a huge collection of applications is a valid way to encourage the use of a particular development environment. It just annoys people and does nothing to earn their good will.
The good way to do that is exactly what Mono has done and what Apple is doing with the iPhone: Make the development environment you want people to use Really Nice to work with. Give them reason to come on their own free will, rather than forcing change by brute force. Help make ValIDE amazing, help with documentation, help get it on as many platforms as possible or write applications that rival F-Spot and Tomboy in usability.

It doesn't have to be Vala, either. Do it for Anjuta and Lisp if that's what you like. Just don't assume people are idiots because they choose to use Mono; they have reasons to do so and it is those reasons you should accommodate rather than ignore.

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 09:02 PM
But discussions here is not dissupporting Mono. It is being discussed whether Mono should be included by default in Ubuntu.
It would still be in the repos and Mono libraries could be installed easily as dependencies of Mono applications.

Methuselah
August 8th, 2008, 09:43 PM
Mono is a gratuitous dependency.
IMO, it doesn't really buy us a great deal and opens us up to more patent FUD from Microsoft.
Yes, I know parts of it are an open standard but much of it that is sensible to implement in order to be compatible with defacto standard (the MS version) is not.

This should tell you that the whole standardisation process is disingenuous when the not even the only complete implementation conforms to it.
The case is the same with Microsoft's document format standard.
Office does not implement it so following it does not get you compatibility with office formats.
Notice a trend here?

Truly open standards that negate vendor lock-in are obviously not in Microsoft's best interest.
They DO have some incentive for other platforms to have less functional versions of their own technologies.

From the standpoint of compatibility and interoperability with other platforms I think Mono is fine.
I don't think it's wise to make many new opensource applications depend on it when there are much less encumbered and just as capable alternatives.

But that's a different matter from whether mono should remain in Ubuntu.
I have no problem with libmono being on my system.
I'm just uneasy about a situation where too much starts *depending* on it.
I think it's a totally unnecessary vulnerability to introduce in the event of a legal challenge (which I don't think will happen BTW).

directhex
August 8th, 2008, 11:46 PM
This should tell you that the whole standardisation process is disingenuous when the not even the only complete implementation conforms to it.

But you can write decent, complete Linux apps using only the standardised components plus Linux-centric technologies like GTK#. I don't think anyone will be advocating WinForms by default, since frankly it looks like ***.


The case is the same with Microsoft's document format standard.
Office does not implement it so following it does not get you compatibility with office formats.
Notice a trend here?

OOo doesn't have a 100% accurate & complete implementation of ODF, believe it or not. What's the old saying? "Never attribute to malice what can be more simply attributed to stupidity"

But discussing OOXML is changing subject (and both OOXML and the binary file formats from old Office versions are covered by irrevocable, GPLv3-compatible patent grants)

Methuselah
August 9th, 2008, 02:23 AM
But you can write decent, complete Linux apps using only the standardised components plus Linux-centric technologies like GTK#. I don't think anyone will be advocating WinForms by default, since frankly it looks like ***.


True but you can also with pyGtk and Java.
I'm not sure what mono buys a new project.
The only reason to choose it is familiarity.




OOo doesn't have a 100% accurate & complete implementation of ODF, believe it or not. What's the old saying? "Never attribute to malice what can be more simply attributed to stupidity"


Yeah, that's only valid when there's no precedent.
With Microsoft there is documented evidence of malice but that's another thing.

Besides, I'm not even talking about 100% compatibility here.
It's still hard to find 100% standard compliant c++ compilers.

The point is that the Microsoft implementation is the de facto standard and if the 'open' standard is not compatible enough with it then it's a lot less useful.

Which brings me to the question of why it needs to be adopted enthusiastically buy the linux community when there are suitable alternative programming environments.
For example, we now have Java and almost all its standard libraries open sourced.
Not just a documented standard, but an actual implementation was provided as a point of departure.
The only reason for bothering with a .Net impl is compatibility with MS and as noted, standard compliance might not even get you that anyway.

I consider mono more an unnecessary distraction/curiosity than a dangerous threat.

agurk
August 9th, 2008, 02:30 AM
I agree with Methuselah and also think that 52MB for two small apps (Tomboy & F-Spot) is just a mind boggling waste of CD space. Keep Mono around in the repos but remove it from ubuntu-default.

smartboyathome
August 9th, 2008, 03:36 AM
I agree with Methuselah and also think that 52MB for two small apps (Tomboy & F-Spot) is just a mind boggling waste of CD space. Keep Mono around in the repos but remove it from ubuntu-default.

The apps are good, though. And especially with tomboy, there is no good alternative.

agurk
August 9th, 2008, 03:52 AM
Agree, there's nothing wrong with the apps and people should be free to install them if they want. They should just not come by default, there is better use for the space is what I'm saying.

smartboyathome
August 9th, 2008, 04:02 AM
Agree, there's nothing wrong with the apps and people should be free to install them if they want. They should just not come by default, there is better use for the space is what I'm saying.

So your saying, by default, we shouldn't have a note taking app? I think we should. It helps keep my nodes organised, and is a good program to include by default to say "I can do more than play music, write documents, and edit images!"

agurk
August 9th, 2008, 05:00 AM
So your saying, by default, we shouldn't have a note taking app?
Ubuntu already has one note taking app, Sticky Notes. If you want something fancier, feel free to install Tomboy. I'm saying that another note taking app doesn't warrant losing 52MB(!) of CD space.
There are tons of other things we could include instead; instruction videos, a firewall GUI, more translations, games, virtualization software, you name it.

Canis familiaris
August 9th, 2008, 10:05 AM
ubuntu already has one note taking app, sticky notes. If you want something fancier, feel free to install tomboy. I'm saying that another note taking app doesn't warrant losing 52mb(!) of cd space.
There are tons of other things we could include instead; instruction videos, a firewall gui, more translations, games, virtualization software, you name it.

+1 but firewall gui and extra games not needed

directhex
August 9th, 2008, 10:53 AM
Ubuntu already has one note taking app, Sticky Notes. If you want something fancier, feel free to install Tomboy. I'm saying that another note taking app doesn't warrant losing 52MB(!) of CD space.
There are tons of other things we could include instead; instruction videos, a firewall GUI, more translations, games, virtualization software, you name it.

You don't lose 52 MiB of CD space. You lose 52MiB of installed on disk space, and 16MiB of space to packages. This will be shrunk by about 40% for Ubuntu+2


Which brings me to the question of why it needs to be adopted enthusiastically buy the linux community when there are suitable alternative programming environments.
For example, we now have Java and almost all its standard libraries open sourced.

Java wasn't remotely open-sourced when Mono was started - and writing native-feeling apps in Java is practically impossible (you can ask any developer about JNI versus P/Invoke, for example)

That and the space requirements today for including a Java app on the default install are several times higher than a Mono app

directhex
August 9th, 2008, 11:26 AM
Ubuntu already has one note taking app, Sticky Notes. If you want something fancier, feel free to install Tomboy.

Why bother with OpenOffice.org on the default install, since it comes with nano?

Methuselah
August 9th, 2008, 01:23 PM
Java wasn't remotely open-sourced when Mono was started - and writing native-feeling apps in Java is practically impossible (you can ask any developer about JNI versus P/Invoke, for example)


My SWT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Widget_Toolkit)-based Eclipse IDE feels differently.
It looks like every other gnome app and respects my theme.



That and the space requirements today for including a Java app on the default install are several times higher than a Mono app

I have 109GB of free space, Java's size isn't really an issue.
The point is that we have several rather complete and unencumbered options.
It's not necessary to get hooked on Microsoft originated technologies
(that are more feature complete on windows and may present legal barriers to their improvement on linux)
when we have suitable alternatives that the community can steer.

It's like how wine may be useful for running windows apps but I'd never make a program intended primarily for linux use gratuitously dependent on winelib just so that I can use Win32 API syntax.
However Mono does implement .Net on linux primarily so we can use a gimped version of Microsoft's platform to develop programs intended for linux.
Why? How is this beneficial and who does it really benefit?

I have a theory for that.
But instead, I'll follow your previous advice and attribute it all to stupidity. :)

Methuselah
August 9th, 2008, 01:32 PM
Why bother with OpenOffice.org on the default install, since it comes with nano?

Why not use a fork to drink soup?

Canis familiaris
August 9th, 2008, 01:56 PM
Why not use a fork to drink soup?

:lolflag:

loell
August 9th, 2008, 02:01 PM
Why not use a fork to drink soup?

difficult, but hey, not impossible. =P~

Canis familiaris
August 9th, 2008, 02:08 PM
difficult, but hey, not impossible. =P~

So is writing advanced documents in Nano. ;)

loell
August 9th, 2008, 02:13 PM
So is writing advanced documents in Nano. ;)

for advance documents then use vim.

smartboyathome
August 9th, 2008, 03:40 PM
Ubuntu already has one note taking app, Sticky Notes. If you want something fancier, feel free to install Tomboy. I'm saying that another note taking app doesn't warrant losing 52MB(!) of CD space.
There are tons of other things we could include instead; instruction videos, a firewall GUI, more translations, games, virtualization software, you name it.

Sticky notes is hardly a note taking app. It is more like real sticky notes, featureless and very few uses besides discretely reminding. Also, it takes approximately 10 mbs of the cd space, which includes both apps. This is because squashfs compresses near 2 GBs of space to the size able to fit on a cd (approximately 600MBs).

Canis familiaris
August 9th, 2008, 03:59 PM
for advance documents then use vim.
Actually I am going to get familiar with vim. I am planning to learn it. :)


Sticky notes is hardly a note taking app. It is more like real sticky notes, featureless and very few uses besides discretely reminding. Also, it takes approximately 10 mbs of the cd space, which includes both apps. This is because squashfs compresses near 2 GBs of space to the size able to fit on a cd (approximately 600MBs).

Well I do guess those Mono applications are popular, and since apparently there are no "good enough' alternatives, then they will stay.
But is it really impossible to write these programs in a framework other than mono. I think not.
I hope somebody writes them (not me yet, I am a beginner programmer. Maybe a project for me when I learn enough :) ) because I seriously do not want Mono by default, (It's OK in the repos though) because Microsoft has not explicitly stated not to enforce its patents regarding .NET and Mono.

lyceum
August 9th, 2008, 04:39 PM
I hate the idea that there are "good" and "evil" programing languages. If Mono made my system feel weak and more prone to viruses, I would say get rid of it. If MS starts suing people with Mono, I would say, fight back. We cannot bend to the will of corporations when they are in the wrong.

From Wikipedia:


Mono is dual licensed by Novell, similar to other products such as Qt and the Mozilla Application Suite. Mono's C# compiler and tools are released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (starting with version 2.0 of Mono, the Mono C# compiler source code will also be available under the MIT X11 license)[5], the runtime libraries under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and the class libraries under the MIT License. These are all free software and open-source licenses and hence Mono is free and open-source software.

Developers contributing source code to Mono upstream must agree to distribute their code to Novell under a license that allows Novell to relicense the code under other licensing terms. This practice is similar to copyright assignment agreements used in other free and open source software projects (used in many GNU projects and by MySQL), however, this method allows the developer to retain copyright of the original work while still preserving Novell's ability to commercially license Mono for specific customers that require different licensing terms than what is provided in general release versions (such as running Mono in embedded firmware environments).

MS has an agreement with Novell, Novell would have to say who can or cannot use Mono. They have not said anything that I know of, though the Mon group leader has (see wikipedia).

As for me, I think taking Mono away gives power to MS they should not have. MS is full of poop (SHOCK!!!):shock: Here is why. . . Ironically, they are fighting to make patents on computer software illegal, just as they are buying patents and threatening to sue. So, in the end they will do nothing anyway. They are just making FUD.

If you do not feel safe, use Gobuntu.

data2005
August 9th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Is there anywhere said specifically, which version of GPL/LGPL is applied?

"GPLv2 or later" or "GPLv2 only"?

Does it say anywhere on an official site, because I just can't find that information...

If GPLv2 or later could anyone take it to GPLv3 or does it need Novell for that?

directhex
August 10th, 2008, 01:32 AM
Is there anywhere said specifically, which version of GPL/LGPL is applied?

"GPLv2 or later" or "GPLv2 only"?

Does it say anywhere on an official site, because I just can't find that information...

If GPLv2 or later could anyone take it to GPLv3 or does it need Novell for that?

Curiously, no version is stated anywhere in the GPL-covered files (mcs and tools).

Now, read GPLv2 clause 9.

I'm checking the real-world upshot.

data2005
August 10th, 2008, 09:30 AM
Curiously, no version is stated anywhere in the GPL-covered files (mcs and tools).

Now, read GPLv2 clause 9.


That's odd.
They should have clearly picked GPLv2 only (as Linux kernel did), GPLv2 or later, or GPLv3.
How can I or anybody else not responsible for releasing code as GPL choose any version if none is stated, when I do not know how patents might affect it, and therefore chose v3?

smartboyathome
August 10th, 2008, 03:31 PM
I think if they don't say, then any version can be applied. But to see which version it uses, look at the source code, in the "LICENSE" file. It should have a phraze at the top of the file which says "GNU General Public License version X".

Threedays
August 10th, 2008, 04:11 PM
Unless linux/gnu community make their own intermediate layer, then MSIL should be accepted, especially since MSIL has been made an ISO.

For those that don't understand MSIL - Microsoft Intermediate Language and is a pseudo machine code language. Mono is a take on the ISO of MSIL(Ecma-334.) The code produced on any compliant Ecma-334 development base is an interoperable version of machine code. So people who want to develop software for multi platforms should embrace Mono. Else they would require to learn multi, cpu opcoding, specific hardware knowledge, and specific API's.

Think, you can make software for Win32, Linux, Pocket PC's Pocket Linux devices, Mobile Phones, etc. All only knowing one language and some side research.

saulgoode
August 10th, 2008, 04:39 PM
For those that don't understand MSIL - Microsoft Intermediate Language and is a pseudo machine code language. Mono is a take on the ISO of MSIL(Ecma-334.) The code produced on any compliant Ecma-334 development base is an interoperable version of machine code.

ECMA 334 is the C# language specification. You likely meant ECMA 335, which describes the Common Language Infrastructure (nee MSIL).

Mono is designed to inter-operate with Microsoft's .NET software framework -- Mono is not currently designed to be ECMA-335 compliant, despite ECMA 335 having been around since 2001 and Mono since 2002 (edit: Mono started in 2001).

Canis familiaris
August 10th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Think, you can make software for Win32, Linux, Pocket PC's Pocket Linux devices, Mobile Phones, etc. All only knowing one language and some side research.

Qt is cross platform too unless I'm mistaken.

data2005
August 10th, 2008, 05:23 PM
Think, you can make software for Win32, Linux, Pocket PC's Pocket Linux devices, Mobile Phones, etc. All only knowing one language and some side research.
You mean like Java?

data2005
August 10th, 2008, 05:41 PM
I think if they don't say, then any version can be applied. But to see which version it uses, look at the source code, in the "LICENSE" file. It should have a phraze at the top of the file which says "GNU General Public License version X".
Here you are, trying to find out the License:

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/

Some part has a license:
http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/Mono.Nat/

(MIT only)

some part doesnt seem to have any license:
http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/Mono.Profiler/

or it hides them and doesn't list anything in each header of each file as it should be!

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/mono-tools/LICENSE
It is all but clear what applies here, because I cannot locate this LICENSE.GPL file!

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/branches/gtk-sharp-2-10-branch/README
Here it doesnt say which LGPL and doesnt claim a further LICENSE.LGPL...

If you start skimming through the Source-Code-repository, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that licensing seems like a COMPLETE MESS!!!

Can anyone help find that LICENSE.GPL/LGPL and write here what version of the GPL/LGPL applies?

saulgoode
August 10th, 2008, 06:41 PM
Can anyone help find that LICENSE.GPL/LGPL and write here what version of the GPL/LGPL applies?

I would presume that LICENSE.GPL corresponds to the COPYING file and LICENSE.LGPL corresponds to the COPYING.LIB file. It appears the intent is that C# and mono-tools be GPL V2.0 -- with no later version option.

directhex
August 10th, 2008, 06:44 PM
Here you are, trying to find out the License:

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/

Some part has a license:
http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/Mono.Nat/

(MIT only)

some part doesnt seem to have any license:
http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/Mono.Profiler/

or it hides them and doesn't list anything in each header of each file as it should be!

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/trunk/mono-tools/LICENSE
It is all but clear what applies here, because I cannot locate this LICENSE.GPL file!

http://anonsvn.mono-project.com/source/branches/gtk-sharp-2-10-branch/README
Here it doesnt say which LGPL and doesnt claim a further LICENSE.LGPL...

If you start skimming through the Source-Code-repository, you'd quickly come to the conclusion that licensing seems like a COMPLETE MESS!!!

Can anyone help find that LICENSE.GPL/LGPL and write here what version of the GPL/LGPL applies?

"mcs" folder.

data2005
August 10th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I would presume that LICENSE.GPL corresponds to the COPYING file and LICENSE.LGPL corresponds to the COPYING.LIB file. It appears the intent is that C# and mono-tools be GPL V2.0 -- with no later version option.

GPLv2 only of course makes sense... as to prevent any upgrade to v3.
So this part that could make a possible patent-litigation more likely is in place.

To clarify:
I really would love Mono to be totally unencumbered and usable to the fullest on Linux.
But as is likely, as soon as Mono would become a hit on Linux, you think MS will watch Mono help Linux grow by leaps and bounds?
Microsoft will demand compensation for their IP or do something to stop "its" technology from being used.

When this happens, a lot of resources would have been wasted, so implementing Mono-technology is currently a double-edged sword:
If Mono is superb and doesn't get used it means a great loss of resources,
but when it becomes so succesfull and gets a MS-tax stamped on, it is even more sad that technology built upon Mono will have to be replaced or become lost to those who do not have a contract or covenant...

smartboyathome
August 10th, 2008, 09:34 PM
Data, you also got to take into account the thin line Microsoft is walking with Europe. They have already claimed Microsoft to be a monopoly, and Microsoft has helped some open source projects in order to deteriorate that claim. What do you think Europe will do when Microsoft takes *insert American Linux company which uses Mono in their distro here* to court? Nothing good. Besides that, the patents only apply in the U.S., and since both Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth are outside the U.S., it won't affect Ubuntu that much besides give them another thing to use for their FUD campaign, which is already what they are doing.

rikhard.fsoss
August 12th, 2008, 10:32 AM
hi all, i agree that mono should be banned from all distros that really are FLOSS.
novell can do what ever they like, those guys are no longer welcome to the FLOSS community.

i think this info on wikipedia sums up very well the problems:

«This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[7]:
“ Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. There’s nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that. ”

On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell’s customers for patent infringement.[8] According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza,[9] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers. It was criticized by the free software community because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Novell and their Patent Agreement with Microsoft).»

and by the way Red Hat doesn't like mono either:

"Fedora wants nothing to do with Moonlight, which is a patent trap from the company that rattles a saber.»[1]"
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/02/fedora-no-moonlight/

sometimes folks says that there is no problem using moonlight, i don't know how could someone say that, moonlight depends on mono.

i refuse to use or have installed mono, in fact i don't use ubuntu, i use kubuntu and there is no crap mono there.
in my sidux and debian's installs of course there is not mono crap too.

in fact i think ubuntu should change from gnome to kde or E17 while it's time, because microsoft fan boy miguel icaza just recently said this:

“I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET.”

rjnunes

rjnunes

reya276
August 12th, 2008, 05:55 PM
I don't think you understand what is going on here, people truly have a MORAL issue with Microsoft; If you have any IDEA what this means then and only then you will understand why lots of people feel this way. In fact I do too, I can't support FOSS projects or companies whom insist on using MS tech it is not worth giving up ones freedom for convenience or money, ask Miguel he will tell you otherwise!

Canis familiaris
August 12th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Why are they even considering to make GNOME dependent on Mono? I would prefer Qt based GNOME over Mono Based GNOME by a longshot.

Mr. Picklesworth
August 12th, 2008, 06:24 PM
hi all, i agree that mono should be banned from all distros that really are FLOSS.
novell can do what ever they like, those guys are no longer welcome to the FLOSS community.
Oh? Where did this news come from? Last I checked Novell is a huge contributor for upstream kernel development. If you poke around the About dialogs in GNOME, you will notice a lot of good programs with Novell's name on them.



i think this info on wikipedia sums up very well the problems:

«This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[7]:
“ Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. There’s nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that. ”
So... Richard Stallman accepts Mono as a good language for users, but we should BAN IT because he cautions that we shouldn't be dependent on it? Richard Stallman also cautions that we shouldn't be dependent on proprietary software. Should we ban binary software distribution, as well?



On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell’s customers for patent infringement.[8] According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza,[9] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers. It was criticized by the free software community because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Novell and their Patent Agreement with Microsoft).»
Agreed, that's a bit lame. While I don't know the agreement in detail, I do wonder if it would hold up if challenged. For example, Ubuntu uses tons of the software that makes up Novel's desktop environment, including a variety of things straight from Novell. Thus, at some level, I am a Novell customer.




and by the way Red Hat doesn't like mono either:

"Fedora wants nothing to do with Moonlight, which is a patent trap from the company that rattles a saber.»[1]"
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/02/fedora-no-moonlight/

sometimes folks says that there is no problem using moonlight, i don't know how could someone say that, moonlight depends on mono.

Moonlight != Mono. Moonlight is an extension of Mono, adding web plugin functionality as in Microsoft's Silverlight. Thankfully, sane web developers continue to use Javascript. Think of this like Gnash, except that Moonlight is wrapping something a bit easier to wrap. (And, frankly, to work with).
In that territory, this is the lesser of two evils, since at least here we have more than one development team, which means we do not become directly dependent -- as has happened with Flash until very recently. It also means the free version on Linux (Moonlight) works very well.
Having said that, I have an intense dislike for these 'rich web applications' powered by odd plugins like Flash and Silverlight, so while I hope for Moon/Silverlight to overcome Flash, I also hope they all die very soon. Oh, and Moonlight is a confirmed legal risk covered by a hostile and incompatible license agreement. The Groklaw article does a nice job of outlining it.

(Don't get me wrong, by the way. If someone writes a Mono -> Vala magic code converter, I will be the the first to attempt running it on Monodevelop and Tomboy)

Back to Fedora... I believe it does ship Mono applications (or at least the runtime) by default, although I must admit that I don't follow it extremely closely. Red Hat is a huge contributor of stuff for the open source community, so I agree what they do is worth a look. They have a lot of brains and a lot of influence. (Just a shame their web site is so weird to navigate!). They do seem rather uncertain about it, so it's worth keeping an eye on...

Edit:
Yep. From your link, "Fedora currently has Novell’s Mono in it."


i refuse to use or have installed mono, in fact i don't use ubuntu, i use kubuntu and there is no crap mono there.
in my sidux and debian's installs of course there is not mono crap too.Your computer touches nasty stuff every day. Be glad this is overcome easily. You won't even need to wash your hands. However, the fact that you have found an alternative is nice. Thanks! I will point this out to those who complain about Mono applications being in Ubuntu; they don't have to use the GNOME desktop.


in fact i think ubuntu should change from gnome to kde or E17 while it's time,
If you want a KDE Ubuntu, use Kubuntu; it does not install any Mono applications by default and the temptation to do so manually is much less. The E17 desktop is also available.



because microsoft fan boy miguel icaza just recently said this:
“I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no, version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET.”
Miguel starts things, but he has a nice way of ultimately slipping out of projects so they can become totally community controlled instead of relying on him specifically. He founded GNOME, but he is not a member of the GNOME foundation at this point. He just does his own thing.

Side note: He founded GNOME, which has been a strong driver of accessibility and ease of use on the Linux desktop. Respect.

kirsis
August 12th, 2008, 07:03 PM
Why are they even considering to make GNOME dependent on Mono? I would prefer Qt based GNOME over Mono Based GNOME by a longshot.

That's a case of apples to oranges ;)

Canis familiaris
August 12th, 2008, 07:06 PM
That's a case of apples to oranges ;)

Why?

kirsis
August 12th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Well, in broad terms:

Qt is a widget toolkit/app framework (provides widgets for app GUIs and implements some new language constructs too, AFAIK) for C++.

Mono is a runtime environment. When you write an app in a Mono/.NET language, the application gets compiled to bytecode, then when it is executed, a just-in-time compiler is used to generate the actual code for the cpu (optimized for the actual pc it runs on, instead of the one its specified to be optimized for at compile time). The app is sandboxed and has an inbuilt garbage collector. Can be used with whatever language for which a compiler is written, not just C++. Since the apps are compiled to bytecode, the same apps can be run under different OSes without changes (under Mono on *nix and under .NET/Mono on Windows).

I'm sure you can google some more satisfactory explanations/descriptions of both, if you care to.

directhex
August 13th, 2008, 09:09 AM
It's worth pointing out that Moonlight is a distinct component from Mono - it's a standalone plugin

viduliya
August 13th, 2008, 03:13 PM
for advance documents then use vim.

no kidding... use vim and write LaTeX documents. :guitar:

neighborlee
August 14th, 2008, 01:57 AM
Edit:
Yep. From your link, "Fedora currently has Novell’s Mono in it."



What link...and no , the livecd does not, and has not since fedora 9, and while Im at it, lets be clear that 'redhat' itself never has, never will.

Where is the gpl'ness involved in having to get a given technology only from a given source, thereby totally violating the GPL.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-November/msg00772.html

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/25/gnome-functionality-wo-csharp/

I mean how much more does it take to show people that what is going on, is not in linux best interest, but M$ ( Yes, I said M$, if it bothers you so much filter it out) coorporate types and those that hang with them and share their agenda of software domination to the exclusion of all others.

FOSS will rule someday, and there will be zero room for patents on any level, and for linux to be including patent encumbered software is just about as immoral as you can possibly get. I am so glad Redhat has fought this so bravely ever since this started, and kudos to fedora for finally doing whats right; at least on the livecd , I have no idea about anything else.

cheers
nl

directhex
August 14th, 2008, 11:08 AM
What link...and no , the livecd does not, and has not since fedora 9, and while Im at it, lets be clear that 'redhat' itself never has, never will.

Where is the gpl'ness involved in having to get a given technology only from a given source, thereby totally violating the GPL.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-November/msg00772.html

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/25/gnome-functionality-wo-csharp/

I mean how much more does it take to show people that what is going on, is not in linux best interest, but M$ ( Yes, I said M$, if it bothers you so much filter it out) coorporate types and those that hang with them and share their agenda of software domination to the exclusion of all others.

FOSS will rule someday, and there will be zero room for patents on any level, and for linux to be including patent encumbered software is just about as immoral as you can possibly get. I am so glad Redhat has fought this so bravely ever since this started, and kudos to fedora for finally doing whats right; at least on the livecd , I have no idea about anything else.

cheers
nl

From your own links, read https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-November/msg00872.html

As has already been repeated ad nauseam, there are PLENTY of patents violated by a standard desktop Linux install. There are plenty just in the kernel. There are plenty owned by Microsoft. There are plenty owned by bigger patent-abusers than Microsoft.

Patents, however, are much like nuclear warfare. You don't use them unless you want them to be used on you. And unlike patent trolls (who produce no goods), Microsoft have plenty of real-world patent-violating products that could be harmed by the leverage of pro-OSS patent groups like OIN.

RHEL's opting for Java-based tech rather than Mono has nothing to do with nebulous patent fear - and everything to do with their large in-house Java leanings, including their purchase of JBoss.

Canis familiaris
August 14th, 2008, 11:23 AM
Well, in broad terms:

Qt is a widget toolkit/app framework (provides widgets for app GUIs and implements some new language constructs too, AFAIK) for C++.

Mono is a runtime environment. When you write an app in a Mono/.NET language, the application gets compiled to bytecode, then when it is executed, a just-in-time compiler is used to generate the actual code for the cpu (optimized for the actual pc it runs on, instead of the one its specified to be optimized for at compile time). The app is sandboxed and has an inbuilt garbage collector. Can be used with whatever language for which a compiler is written, not just C++. Since the apps are compiled to bytecode, the same apps can be run under different OSes without changes (under Mono on *nix and under .NET/Mono on Windows).

I'm sure you can google some more satisfactory explanations/descriptions of both, if you care to.

Interesting.

neighborlee
August 14th, 2008, 04:44 PM
From your own links, read https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-November/msg00872.html

As has already been repeated ad nauseam, there are PLENTY of patents violated by a standard desktop Linux install. There are plenty just in the kernel. There are plenty owned by Microsoft. There are plenty owned by bigger patent-abusers than Microsoft.

Patents, however, are much like nuclear warfare. You don't use them unless you want them to be used on you. And unlike patent trolls (who produce no goods), Microsoft have plenty of real-world patent-violating products that could be harmed by the leverage of pro-OSS patent groups like OIN.

RHEL's opting for Java-based tech rather than Mono has nothing to do with nebulous patent fear - and everything to do with their large in-house Java leanings, including their purchase of JBoss.

You have proof of such horrible patents violations in linux where exactly, what their scope is yadda ?

Oh and btw, yes I read that URL your mentioned long ago, and its clear one guy of many was the lone wolf crying in the wilderness and he got zero traction, because there is none to get ;)

In your lofty explanation you neglected to consider that it might just be both issues , not just java, but you just keep drumming up those conspiracy theories you love so much.

I dont care how many linux has built in ( care to document those individually ?? ) adding one more does nothing in keeping with the tenants of FOSS.

It's also still relevant that making the linux community get those patents from one source is a violation of the GPL, but I guess glossing over that is a good ( attempt anyway) plan of attack ha-ha.


cheers
nl

Dremora
August 14th, 2008, 05:36 PM
GPLv2 only of course makes sense... as to prevent any upgrade to v3.
So this part that could make a possible patent-litigation more likely is in place.

To clarify:
I really would love Mono to be totally unencumbered and usable to the fullest on Linux.
But as is likely, as soon as Mono would become a hit on Linux, you think MS will watch Mono help Linux grow by leaps and bounds?
Microsoft will demand compensation for their IP or do something to stop "its" technology from being used.

When this happens, a lot of resources would have been wasted, so implementing Mono-technology is currently a double-edged sword:
If Mono is superb and doesn't get used it means a great loss of resources,
but when it becomes so succesfull and gets a MS-tax stamped on, it is even more sad that technology built upon Mono will have to be replaced or become lost to those who do not have a contract or covenant...

Mono is only based on the parts of .Net that are ECMA and ISO standards, Microsoft doesn't own those parts anymore than AT&T could have sued GNU for using C, or Sun for starting to build their own JAVA compiler and runtime before they open sourced it.

I'd say C# is definitely an improvement over JAVA, C# is virtually indistinguishable from a native app in performance, resource use, or desktop integration.

Microsoft would be unable to charge license fees for Mono, and if they change .Net for no other reason than to do it, then they have to make those specs available too, and they end up supporting even more stuff.

saulgoode
August 14th, 2008, 06:21 PM
Mono is only based on the parts of .Net that are ECMA and ISO standards,

Not true. Mono implements Microsoft's .NET technology as implemented by Microsoft, not the ECMA standard. Mono isn't even compliant with the ISO and ECMA standards.


Microsoft doesn't own those parts

Neither ECMA or ISO require that patent holders forfeit ownership of their patents for their standards to be approved. Only that "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing terms be offered. Neither organization specifies a definition for "reasonable and non-discriminatory".

ECMA: “The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve
recommendations of Standards which are covered by
patents when such patents will not be licensed by their
owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.”

ISO:"The patent holder is willing to negotiate licences free of charge with other parties on a nondiscriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions."

or


"The patent holder is willing to negotiate licences with other parties on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions."


Microsoft would be unable to charge license fees for Mono,

Microsoft has made it very clear that licenses fees will NOT be charged. Nonetheless, they have also expressed that other obligations should be expected by those who use the patented technology. It is these other obligations which make adoption of Mono unpalatable to many in the Free Software community.


and if they change .Net for no other reason than to do it, then they have to make those specs available too, and they end up supporting even more stuff.

There is no requirement that any modified versions of .NET be submitted to ECMA and ISO for standards approval. In fact, subsequent versions have not been made approved standards, nor have their specifications been made available (and the Mono Project does not permit viewing of such specifications by its developers anyway).

kirsis
August 14th, 2008, 06:37 PM
While you are correct on that ECMA/ISO standards don't mean freedom frmo patents, wtf is this:


Not true. Mono implements Microsoft's .NET technology as implemented by Microsoft, not the ECMA standard. Mono isn't even compliant with the ISO and ECMA standards.


As implemented by Microsoft = as in the standards. Its their effing standard and technology. The ECMA/ISO standards have been updated with every new addition to the technology.

It would not be possible for alternative implementations to be compatible with .NET, if .NET wasn't implemented according to the specs.

Or do Mono devs get all the necessary inside info from Microsoft thanks to shady, amoral and downright evil deals? Did DotGNU make the same deals?

neighborlee
August 14th, 2008, 06:53 PM
I smell flame-bait ...

Anyone want to move this to recurring discussions?

It wasn't flamebait, your the one that brought that up , and Im wondering if you had a alterior motive in doing so; his account of his worries of mono was set forth very logically I thought, but clearly you didnt' share that and decided to try to tarnish it as flamebait to counter it.

I also find it rather odd , that such a important thread is hidden from most users eyes in this area, as we all know 'general' discussion is where its likely to be seen the most, unless of course there is some reason to hide it. "Most" users aren't going to come here and find it, but its those very users whom will be the most affected by its inclusion.

cheers
nl

saulgoode
August 14th, 2008, 06:58 PM
As implemented by Microsoft = as in the standards. Its their effing standard and technology. The ECMA/ISO standards have been updated with every new addition to the technology.
The "standard" to which Mono is designed is Microsoft's Software Development Toolkit, not ECMA 334.

Mono Project FAQ:

Will you offer an ECMA-compliant set of class libraries?

Eventually we will. Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.

kirsis
August 14th, 2008, 07:26 PM
... you just keep drumming up those conspiracy theories you love so much.


I also find it rather odd, that such a important thread is hidden from most users eyes in this area

Yeah! Pay no heed to the conspiracy nuts... but wait, what's that in the second quote? :-s


The "standard" to which Mono is designed is Microsoft's Software Development Toolkit, not ECMA 334.


Will you offer an ECMA-compliant set of class libraries?

Eventually we will. Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.

Ecma-334 is a language specification, SDK is a bunch of APIs. Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing random terms around that you don't understand?

The FAQ quote is talking about a fully compliant set of class libraries. It does not mean that they are ignoring ECMA, they just have split their effort trying to do the ECMA parts and the MS compatibility stack too. The ECMA parts are ECMA for a reason - they are essential. The additional MS APIs are not.

What's important for users on Linux is that the C#/CLR parts are ECMA compatible. We have our own APIs (GTK#, for one) that we can use, as long as the underlying runtime + C# are working. Not implementing MS APIs is of little consequence to Mono use on Linux.

And the FAQ page you quoted is somewhat outdated.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Current_status_and_roadmap

They have implemented the core libs too by now.

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Mono_components and learn what parts of the technology the ECMA standards cover.

The C# compiler, the VM and the core libs.

It is impossible to implement a compatible runtime by three parties (DotGNU, Mono and MS) without using the ECMA standards. There is no deception here.

saulgoode
August 14th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Ecma-334 is a language specification, SDK is a bunch of APIs. Do you know what you are talking about or are you just throwing random terms around that you don't understand?

Indeed, I should have (and thought I had) specified ECMA 335. I am particularly chagrined by my mistake as I had previously in this thread corrected someone who had made a similar error (though my approach (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5560616&postcount=161) was not nearly so puerile).

And the FAQ page you quoted is somewhat outdated.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#Current_status_and_roadmap

Considering the faulty information on the FAQ page, I was originally holding the same view: it just wasn't getting updated. However, I noticed that just a few weeks ago the FAQ: Licensing page (http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) was updated to reflect that the C# compiler was now being offered under MIT/X11 licensing. So obviously someone is paying some amount of attention and I am left wondering why they don't correct the misleading comments about Microsoft's expressed patent licensing terms, clarify the copyrights assignment question, and correct the misrepresentation that commercial licensing is required by the LGPL for code use on embedded systems.

If there is no attempt to deceive, the project's FAQ should not contain such misleading information. The Wikipedia is a great resource for providing information; however, I do not agree with you that one should consider the information Wikipedia provides to be more accurate than that from the Mono Project itself. If such is the case then the Mono Project FAQ is in desperate need of updating.

kirsis
August 14th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Considering the faulty information on the FAQ page, I was originally holding the same view: it just wasn't getting updated. However, I noticed that just a few weeks ago the FAQ: Licensing page (http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) was updated to reflect that the C# compiler was now being offered under MIT/X11 licensing. So obviously someone is paying some amount of attention and I am left wondering why they don't correct the misleading comments about Microsoft's expressed patent licensing terms, clarify the copyrights assignment question, and correct the misrepresentation that commercial licensing is required by the LGPL for code use on embedded systems.

If there is no attempt to deceive, the project's FAQ should not contain such misleading information. The Wikipedia is a great resource for providing information; however, I do not agree with you that one should consider the information Wikipedia provides to be more accurate than that from the Mono Project itself. If such is the case then the Mono Project FAQ is in desperate need of updating.

I agree that Wikipedia is not always the most accurate source of information but the Mono wiki pages seem and have always seemed a bit of a mess to me.

Either way, the point is that they are implementing Mono according to the ECMA standards and it most definitely is compatible with ECMA (maybe not 100% yet). They couldn't implement it without these standards. If they had to reverse engineer everything, Mono would not be near the quality it is today. Whether or not they choose to implement additional MS APIs is unrelated.

edit: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-335.htm

Puerile or not, your original statement about SDKs is still nonsense

saulgoode
August 15th, 2008, 12:03 AM
I agree that Wikipedia is not always the most accurate source of information but the Mono wiki pages seem and have always seemed a bit of a mess to me.

Either way, the point is that they are implementing Mono according to the ECMA standards and it most definitely is compatible with ECMA (maybe not 100% yet). They couldn't implement it without these standards. If they had to reverse engineer everything, Mono would not be near the quality it is today. Whether or not they choose to implement additional MS APIs is unrelated.

Being conformant with a standard is a boolean operation: you either are or you aren't. If, as stated on the project FAQ webpage, Mono is not providing an ECMA-compliant set of class libraries then this means that the minimum required set of class libraries are not provided, or that they are not implemented per the specification. It is not an issue of "additional" class libraries; the specification demands that at least the kernel profile class libraries be provided.

I would think that coming into compliance with the ISO/ECMA standard should be a highly desirable achievement for the project and if such compliance has been attained then the Mono Project should proudly declare such to be case. If it's not in compliance after seven years of development, and the developers state they aren't focusing on conforming to the standards, then I don't consider it nonsensical to question the extent to which Mono is based on the standards.

directhex
August 15th, 2008, 01:13 AM
I would think that coming into compliance with the ISO/ECMA standard should be a highly desirable achievement for the project and if such compliance has been attained then the Mono Project should proudly declare such to be case. If it's not in compliance after seven years of development, and the developers state they aren't focusing on conforming to the standards, then I don't consider it nonsensical to question the extent to which Mono is based on the standards.

4 years.

And exact details:
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/1.1/System.html
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/1.1/mscorlib.html
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/1.1/System.Xml.html
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/2.0/System.html
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/2.0/mscorlib.html
http://mono.ximian.com/class-status/2.0/System.Xml.html

So about 97% of 2.0, 99% of 1.1. Assuming, again, only the base class libraries.

kirsis
August 15th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Being conformant with a standard is a boolean operation: you either are or you aren't.


Mono is fully compliant with Ecma-334 (http://www.go-mono.com/archive/2.0/, see C# support)

Their VM is also standard compliant (http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Technical#Can_Mono_run_applications_developed _with_the_Microsoft.NET_framework.3F)

That leaves the latest class library to be compliant with Ecma-335 as well (Wikipedia seems to be incorrect, if the links from this page produces accurate results http://www.mono-project.com/Class_Status).



If it's not in compliance after seven years of development...


You do know that the standards have been evolving all those seven years, right? And that the devs are always playing catch-up to MS? From .NET 1.1 to 3.0, from C# 1.0 to C# 3.0 (with C# 4.0 coming soon). Its not as if they've been slacking off for 7 years.



... and the developers state they aren't focusing on conforming to the standards...


They state they want full interoperability with the Microsoft implementation. This ultimately involves being standard compliant, no way around it.





There's a strong "Mono is ignoring standards" vibe coming from you coupled with anal retentiveness about it being perfect to the last little detail. I'd venture a guess that if the unimplemented class library parts were a major deal breaker, they'd get implemented fairly quickly. Developers are humans too and it's likely a lot more satisfying to work on some major feature (even if it's not an ECMA feature) than implementing some obscure class library methods that cause a problem in a small number of cases for a very small number of users.

Do you worry like this about Linux not being POSIX compliant too? I'd hope not as its close enough for it not to matter.

Same with Mono - it's close enough. + it's certain that it will be 100% compliant in the future. What more do you want?

saulgoode
August 15th, 2008, 03:11 AM
There's a strong "Mono is ignoring standards" vibe coming from you...

The vibe I'm getting is that your responses all amount to "yes, what you say is true. but it's wrong".

neighborlee
August 15th, 2008, 06:50 PM
Mono is fully compliant with Ecma-334 (http://www.go-mono.com/archive/2.0/, see C# support)

There's a strong "Mono is ignoring standards" vibe coming from you coupled with anal retentiveness about it being perfect to the last little detail.

Same with Mono - it's close enough. + it's certain that it will be 100% compliant in the future. What more do you want?

#1- your character references indicate your lack of willingness to treat others with dignity, therefore your entire dialogue on this issue is 100% suspect, so why should anyone buy into anything you're saying ;)

#2-I guess the community wants the exact same thing, that the wise redhat/fedora developers want , and thats full disclosure and receipt of patents that atm aren't there causing said distros to 'not' embrace mono, along with the aforementioned Java .

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono < I may be incorrect and feel free to state so, but if not , the rand + royal free worries from this author I believe are at least part ( if not exactly) of the same worries as to what keeps mono OUT of Redhat/fedora ( at least livecd not sure about dvd ) ). I realize this is from 2004 but from many things people are saying things seem not to have changed at all.

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/14/mono-sneaks-into-kde/ < Then there is this,,who knew...

http://meandubuntu.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/my-first-taste-of-kde/ < It ain't just us here ;)

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/10/ooxml-puppet-novell/ < how very interesting..[ and from that page: http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-30546/engineering-industry-support-for-ooxml-novell

What more do you want ? :)

cheers
nl

neighborlee
August 15th, 2008, 06:57 PM
Mono is fully compliant with Ecma-334 (http://www.go-mono.com/archive/2.0/, see C# support)

There's a strong "Mono is ignoring standards" vibe coming from you coupled with anal retentiveness about it being perfect to the last little detail.

Same with Mono - it's close enough. + it's certain that it will be 100% compliant in the future. What more do you want?

DUPLICAte pleasE REMOVE post moderator :)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

#1- your character references indicate your lack of willingness to treat others with dignity, therefore your entire dialogue on this issue is 100% suspect, so why should anyone buy into anything you're saying ;)

#2-I guess the community wants the exact same thing, that the wise redhat/fedora developers want , and thats full disclosure and receipt of patents that atm aren't there causing said distros to 'not' embrace mono, due to the aforementioned Java .

http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono < I may be incorrect and feel free to state so, but if not , the rand + royal free worries from this author I believe are at least part ( if not exactly) of the same worries as to what keeps mono OUT of Redhat/fedora ( at least livecd not sure about dvd ) ). I realize this is from 2004 but from many things people are saying things seem not to have changed at all.

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/14/mono-sneaks-into-kde/ < Then there is this,,who knew...

http://meandubuntu.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/my-first-taste-of-kde/ < It ain't just us here ;)

http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/10/ooxml-puppet-novell/ < how very interesting..[ and from that page: http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-30546/engineering-industry-support-for-ooxml-novell

What more do you want ? :)

cheers
nl

bruce89
August 15th, 2008, 07:03 PM
Anyone calling it "MONO" (capitals) deserves to be ignored.

Anyway, I think it's fine, if not a bit yucky. For instance, F-Spot gave me a few errors yesterday mentioning a win32 thing. Yuck.

neighborlee
August 15th, 2008, 07:31 PM
Anyone calling it "MONO" (capitals) deserves to be ignored.

Anyway, I think it's fine, if not a bit yucky. For instance, F-Spot gave me a few errors yesterday mentioning a win32 thing. Yuck.

Regarding MONO issue, that is absurd and reactionary, you really shouldn't let just simple things sway you ;)...if someone wants to use all caps and you dont like it, then fine filter it out.

On the F-spot thing, well thats no surprise to me considering the mess the library was in , for so long yet F-Spot was still included in Ubuntu; not great QA is it. You can also check bugzilla for Fspot and clearly see remarks made and ignored, on the drive to keep mono in Ubuntu.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/No-Mono-by-Default

cheers
nl

X40nick
August 15th, 2008, 07:37 PM
I voted YES.

Anything Microsoft in Linux is a incredibly bad thing to do.

I hope Mark takes it out totally!

directhex
August 15th, 2008, 07:50 PM
I voted YES.

Anything Microsoft in Linux is a incredibly bad thing to do.

I hope Mark takes it out totally!

double-clicking then?

Canis familiaris
August 15th, 2008, 08:02 PM
double-clicking then?

It's NOT Microsoft's only technology.

directhex
August 15th, 2008, 08:27 PM
It's NOT Microsoft's only technology.

no, you're right. so are many things in a default ubuntu install, like smbclient or fat32.ko or ntfs-3g

directhex
August 15th, 2008, 08:39 PM
It's NOT Microsoft's only technology.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6727830&OS=6727830&RS=6727830

are you or aren't you going to campaign for ubuntu to stop violating this microsoft patent, by removing all double-click-aware and triple-click-aware apps?

neighborlee
August 15th, 2008, 08:48 PM
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6727830&OS=6727830&RS=6727830

are you or aren't you going to campaign for ubuntu to stop violating this microsoft patent, by removing all double-click-aware and triple-click-aware apps?


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6727830&OS=6727830&RS=6727830

^ You mean this one, filed but nothing assigned LOL ;)

see this too:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/27/mono-and-rand-for-gnome/

cheers
nl

Canis familiaris
August 15th, 2008, 08:56 PM
No.
I don't live in the US and patents dont apply where I live and no I will not campaign to remove any so called "patented" stuff because software patent is crap. Hell I will not compaign against Mono either as long as I use GnomeDo.
But I will still say if they manage to find good Non-Mono alternatives to Tomboy and F-Spot, then they should not include Mono by default. Mono would still be in the repos and would be automatically installed when any of its applications are installed.
BTW Apple failed its case regarding UI patents against Microsoft regarding "Overlapping Windows". I doubt MS would win for "double" click.
But I cannot be sure of Mono.
Of course if you give me a link in which Microsoft explicitely states that it will not press its patents for Mono, then I will change my opinion.

smartboyathome
August 16th, 2008, 04:28 AM
By the way, I would say anything from boycottnovell is a bad resource. They have been caught lying in order to get rid of Novell, so we don't know if they are telling the truth or not.

mrgnash
August 16th, 2008, 05:26 AM
By the way, I would say anything from boycottnovell is a bad resource. They have been caught lying in order to get rid of Novell, so we don't know if they are telling the truth or not.

Yep. Personally, I give the 'information' on that site as much weight as any other information obtained from conspiracy theorists; which is to say, none.

neighborlee
August 16th, 2008, 08:07 AM
Yep. Personally, I give the 'information' on that site as much weight as any other information obtained from conspiracy theorists; which is to say, none.

So , just because a site is deemed 'conspiratorial' by someone ( you, in this case ), it must be so, - is that the plan of attack now ; what you can't address, you just attack ad hominen ? :)


cheers
nl

neighborlee
August 16th, 2008, 08:19 AM
By the way, I would say anything from boycottnovell is a bad resource. They have been caught lying in order to get rid of Novell, so we don't know if they are telling the truth or not.

Worthless nonsensical dribble in a court of law or any respectable debate; I surely hope you can do better than that if your attempt is to support your side ;)

cheers
nl

mrgnash
August 16th, 2008, 08:47 AM
So , just because a site is deemed 'conspiratorial' by someone ( you, in this case ), it must be so, - is that the plan of attack now ; what you can't address, you just attack ad hominen ? :)


cheers
nl

No, my 'plan of attack' is to boycott them.

kirsis
August 16th, 2008, 11:22 AM
#1- your character references indicate your lack of willingness to treat others with dignity, therefore your entire dialogue on this issue is 100% suspect, so why should anyone buy into anything you're saying ;)


Because how I say something does not affect what I'm actually saying? Same as how I wouldn't just start skipping over your posts because of your hypocritical conspiracy ad-hominem a page or two back?

Maybe I should ...

(btw, you get an extra hypocrisy cookie for reproaching others about using a conspiracy-related ad hominem not long after you did it yourself. Slick! ;))



#2- <snip unrelated stuff>

What more do you want ? :)


Your 2nd point is about the whole mono/patents issue. I was talking about Mono + ECMA in my previous post and how saying it is not based on the patents is stupid (though correct on a technicality), since it's got 90%-ish coverage?

So in line with your unrelated reply, I'm gonna go ahead and reply to this with "I want to learn to sing like a bird; apart from that I'm quite satisfied with the status quo" ;)

saulgoode
August 16th, 2008, 03:08 PM
Your 2nd point is about the whole mono/patents issue. I was talking about Mono + ECMA in my previous post and how saying it is not based on the patents is stupid (though correct on a technicality), since it's got 90%-ish coverage?

Would it be safe to assume that you meant "based on the standards" in your second sentence?

I do not think it is "stupid" to consider "based on standard X" as not equating to "based on Microsoft's implementation of standard X". Microsoft has a thirty year history of not following standards (has even been convicted in U.S. court over illegal use of such non-compliance). Standards such as Kerberos, CSS, PNG, MPEG-4, Java all implemented supposedly good enough (90%-ish) to claim that they are based on the standards but broken enough that systems that do follow the standards are placed at a disadvantage.

To be honest, I don't even care if Mono chooses to chase after .NET's implementation or whether that might be to cost of ISO/ECMA compliance; I merely corrected what I considered to be misstatements about it (and to which you "technically" agreed). I appreciate the links that you and Directhex have provided and accept that they offer an accurate representation of the level of compliance to the ISO/ECMA standards. Nonetheless, my assessment of Mono's priorities remains unchanged.

bruce89
August 17th, 2008, 01:14 AM
Regarding MONO issue, that is absurd and reactionary, you really shouldn't let just simple things sway you ;)...if someone wants to use all caps and you dont like it, then fine filter it out.

It's just that when people capitalise things, they tend to not know what they are talking about.

data2005
August 25th, 2008, 02:39 PM
double-clicking then?

MAN, double-click my a**!!
Don't you know how stupid your argument is???

Even a 4-year-old will get it, that there IS some fundamental difference between making a similar object that has 4 wheels (let's call it another car) and fully duplicating for example a Honda Civic _from the design all the way to the internal technique (motor and stuff)_ and labeling it as your own.

Don't you think one would know, in which case it is infinitely more likely to be successfully sued...?

smartboyathome
August 25th, 2008, 04:46 PM
data2005: There is a problem with your analogy. We aren't copying the whole car (which I assume means copying Windows itself), we are just copying the standard layout they submitted for their seats (just as an example, I don't know anything about cars). The language itself is a standard, and unless the laws change majorly, you won't be able to be sued over Mono. We are using a language which MS uses, yes, but it is mostly because it was patented by Microsoft. The version in Ubuntu is very old, as well, and was made sure not to infringe on any patent infringements.

saulgoode
August 25th, 2008, 05:37 PM
data2005: There is a problem with your analogy. We aren't copying the whole car (which I assume means copying Windows itself), we are just copying the standard layout they submitted for their seats (just as an example, I don't know anything about cars).
There are approximately 350 classes specified in the ECMA 335 standard. Microsoft's .NET Framework has about 2500 classes. Mono's goal (http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Oct-29.html) is to have 100% .NET-compliant framework which means implementing ALL of the MS Framework classes. I don't wish it to be construed that all of the .NET Framework is patented technology or, even if it is, that such patents would be valid; however, Mono is not merely "copying their seats".


The language itself is a standard, and unless the laws change majorly, you won't be able to be sued over Mono.
Being a standard does NOT mean you can not sue over patents. MP3 is a standard and still there have been plenty of lawsuits brought over its technology. You will have to provide more evidence than "it's a standard" to mitigate the threat of lawsuits.

alternatealias
August 25th, 2008, 07:07 PM
There are approximately 350 classes specified in the ECMA 335 standard. Microsoft's .NET Framework has about 2500 classes. Mono's goal (http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Oct-29.html) is to have 100% .NET-compliant framework which means implementing ALL of the MS Framework classes. I don't wish it to be construed that all of the .NET Framework is patented technology or, even if it is, that such patents would be valid; however, Mono is not merely "copying their seats".


Windows.Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET extensions in Mono are split from the core, so it is not required to install those packages to do development work in .NET using Mono.

This eliminates a huge source of potential patent problems.

The portions standardized by both ECMA and ISO are available under non-discriminatory, royalty-free licensing terms. If it was not, DotGNU, at the very least, would not exist.

See here Jim Miller's <jsmiller@microsoft.com> (i.e. the guy who's name appears on most of the patents under question) statement:



The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that
are essential for implementing its standards are available under
"reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of
implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all
International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went
further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C#
and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis
for this purpose.


link: http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html



Being a standard does NOT mean you can not sue over patents. MP3 is a standard and still there have been plenty of lawsuits brought over its technology. You will have to provide more evidence than "it's a standard" to mitigate the threat of lawsuits.

Indeed it doesn't, but in this particular case it does - or at least in so much as Microsoft, HP, and Intel have agreed not to sue over any patents they own that apply to the ECMA and ISO standardized portions of .NET.

If Joe Random Sue-Happy Company comes along that owns patents that apply to .NET, then they can still sue.

But you are always at risk of getting sued by Joe Random Sue-Happy Company even if you stick with Java, C, or C++ because they might also have patents that apply to anything you might link to or implement in those languages as well.

saulgoode
August 25th, 2008, 08:00 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5168275#post5168275

alternatealias
August 25th, 2008, 08:50 PM
I found the following tidbit interesting. gNewSense 2.1, the Linux distro that is sponsored by the FSF, where all packages not considered Free/Open Source Software are removed, includes... you guessed it, Mono.

gNewSense 2.1 ships Mono on their latest LiveCD.

If it's good enough for the FSF, it's good enough for me.

mrgnash
August 25th, 2008, 08:55 PM
I found the following tidbit interesting. gNewSense 2.1, the Linux distro that is sponsored by the FSF, where all packages not considered Free/Open Source Software are removed, includes... you guessed it, Mono.

gNewSense 2.1 ships Mono on their latest LiveCD.

If it's good enough for the FSF, it's good enough for me.

That IS interesting news, and I would have to affirm the same.

alternatealias
August 25th, 2008, 09:15 PM
Indeed. It also includes F-Spot and Tomboy, no Banshee that I can see however (which is a shame because it's my favourite music player).

It's got libbeagle, but I think that's just an IPC library and not the actual indexer.

Doesn't seem to have tracker either, but that probably makes sense seeing as how it's a LiveCD and all ;-)

directhex
August 26th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Indeed. It also includes F-Spot and Tomboy, no Banshee that I can see however (which is a shame because it's my favourite music player).

It's got libbeagle, but I think that's just an IPC library and not the actual indexer.

Doesn't seem to have tracker either, but that probably makes sense seeing as how it's a LiveCD and all ;-)

Perhaps more interesting than the apps (which are unquestionably Free software) is the libs those rely on.

Specifically, do we have any non-ECMA libraries on there?


jms@osc-franzibald:/tmp/gnewsense-livecd-contents$ ls -l usr/lib/mono/2.0/System.Data.dll
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 60 2008-08-23 01:11 usr/lib/mono/2.0/System.Data.dll -> ../gac/System.Data/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Data.dll


Well lookee there! gNewSense contains things covered by evil patents?

I hope it doesn't allow double clicking though [-(

Canis familiaris
August 29th, 2008, 05:24 PM
I hope it doesn't allow double clicking though [-(
See this thread:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=903717

Bubs
October 22nd, 2008, 03:45 AM
I found this thread looking for a boo plugin for mono-develop...

But I don't care if it's included by default with ubuntu. But I do think that with the patent stuff from microsoft it should probably be handled with care. as in probably not included by default but still include it in the repos. and make sure nothing essential is developed in it, or have a non-mono version. which would be a bit dumb.

The whole reason I looking into it is a friend of mine and I were looking into XNA to try make some games for the xbox. sounds kinda cool but I think its C# only. and I was looking for boo because its sounds like an interesting language.

other than XNA I've been totally turned off somehow by the whole .net thing. I don't know why. Maybe cause it's not cross platform, originally. or maybe because it was developed by microsoft. But I've always stayed away from .net, even on windows.

just my 2 cents.

directhex
October 22nd, 2008, 09:15 AM
I found this thread looking for a boo plugin for mono-develop...

monodevelop-boo package - which is in Gutsy or Intrepid, but absent from Hardy.


But I don't care if it's included by default with ubuntu. But I do think that with the patent stuff from microsoft it should probably be handled with care. as in probably not included by default but still include it in the repos. and make sure nothing essential is developed in it, or have a non-mono version. which would be a bit dumb.

Ubuntu ships with support for reading & writing to FAT32 by default. FAT32 is not only patented, but the patent was challenged in court - Microsoft won.

Shall we not ship a kernel by default? 'Cause that'd be awesome!


The whole reason I looking into it is a friend of mine and I were looking into XNA to try make some games for the xbox. sounds kinda cool but I think its C# only. and I was looking for boo because its sounds like an interesting language.

It is interesting, but part of XNA's "appeal" is keeping it simple, which unfortunately means single-language.


other than XNA I've been totally turned off somehow by the whole .net thing. I don't know why. Maybe cause it's not cross platform, originally. or maybe because it was developed by microsoft. But I've always stayed away from .net, even on windows.

Microsoft themselves offer source for a .NET framework which runs on Mac & BSD. It's just not very good compared to Mono. And the main CLI framework itself has a fair few obvious markers that it has cross-platform in mind, such as System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar

Seriously though, the patent argument from tinfoil hat wearers like boycottnovell is all smoke & mirrors - their remit is to lie to you & deceive you "for your own good", and part of that means making damn well sure you don't realise what "patent risk" means in real terms.

I'd suggest giving http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/ a read.

saulgoode
October 22nd, 2008, 12:05 PM
Ubuntu ships with support for reading & writing to FAT32 by default. FAT32 is not only patented, but the patent was challenged in court - Microsoft won.

Shall we not ship a kernel by default? 'Cause that'd be awesome!

In the Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System Specification (pdf) (http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/fatgen103.pdf), MS states the following:


Provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement and subject to the limitations in Sections 1(c) - (f) below, Microsoft grants to you the following non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable, reciprocal limited covenant not to sue under its Necessary Claims solely to make, have made, use, import, and directly and indirectly, offer to sell, sell and otherwise distribute and dispose of portions of products which comply with the Specification in unmodified form.

directhex
October 22nd, 2008, 01:51 PM
In the Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System Specification (pdf) (http://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/fatgen103.pdf), MS states the following:

But boycottnovell says "coming from Microsoft, bound to be broken-, OSP is not a licence nor a contract, and it is not legally binding whatsoever"

Who to trust, who to trust :confused::confused::confused::-({|=

saulgoode
October 22nd, 2008, 02:23 PM
But boycottnovell says "coming from Microsoft, bound to be broken-, OSP is not a licence nor a contract, and it is not legally binding whatsoever"
.NET is not listed amongst projects covered by Microsoft's Open Source Promise (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx#E6). Except for those who are customers of Novell, there is no promise not-to-sue published for Microsoft's .NET technologies.

Show me where Microsoft has granted a royalty-free, no-strings-attached license for use of their .NET patents. The only such license granted of which I am aware comes with the stipulation that I must get the product from Novell -- not Ubuntu, not Xandros, not Debian, not RedHat, nor even build it myself. If what I've said is a lie, please provide a link to where I can find this license.

directhex
October 22nd, 2008, 04:39 PM
.NET is not listed amongst projects covered by Microsoft's Open Source Promise (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx#E6). Except for those who are customers of Novell, there is no promise not-to-sue published for Microsoft's .NET technologies.

You're disagreeing with boycottnovell's assertion that Microsoft's OSP is a trap, yes? Just want to be absolutely clear on all points. If an item gets listed on OSP, then patent-related complaints against it go away? The way they have for things like OOXML?

Yes?


Show me where Microsoft has granted a royalty-free, no-strings-attached license for use of their .NET patents. The only such license granted of which I am aware comes with the stipulation that I must get the product from Novell -- not Ubuntu, not Xandros, not Debian, not RedHat, nor even build it myself. If what I've said is a lie, please provide a link to where I can find this license.

I can't provide a link. ECMA certification requires that they make it available, but those terms are not published publicly (only to ECMA members, or on request direct to the applicant).

How many apps on your system have you specifically researched & cleared from all potential patent risk, our of interest? Are you certain that Mozilla's XPCOM isn't infringing on, say, Microsoft's COM+?

And, perhaps most importantly, what specific business reason would Microsoft have to sue you for patent infringement?

smartboyathome
October 22nd, 2008, 05:38 PM
By the way directhex, boycottnovell is in no way a reliable source. It spreads FUD a lot of times, and many of their articles strech the truth.

directhex
October 22nd, 2008, 06:30 PM
By the way directhex, boycottnovell is in no way a reliable source. It spreads FUD a lot of times, and many of their articles strech the truth.

You know this, I know this, yet they've somehow managed to get their own brand of lies into everyone's heads - so badly I was surprised by some of the details when re-reading the MS/Novell patent agreement.

They're the Jack Thompson of the software patent world. They just drown out serious discussion.

bubba_169
October 22nd, 2008, 06:35 PM
I wish they'd install banshee by default ... so I guess mono comes as part of the deal :D

directhex
October 22nd, 2008, 07:01 PM
I wish they'd install banshee by default ... so I guess mono comes as part of the deal :D

I'm going to propose to the desktop team that they re-analyse the default music player question - comparing all sensible options - for 9.10. I don't think Banshee is quite there yet, and there are packaging concerns I don't see getting fixed in time for Jaunty

saulgoode
October 23rd, 2008, 01:25 AM
You're disagreeing with boycottnovell's assertion that Microsoft's OSP is a trap, yes? Just want to be absolutely clear on all points. If an item gets listed on OSP, then patent-related complaints against it go away? The way they have for things like OOXML?

Yes?
No (but of no relevance anyway).

I disagree with Mr Chestowitz's assertion that corporate "promises" hold no legal weight; though they are not as reassuring as licenses or contracts. Public (even private) statements made by corporate personnel can play a role in adjudication.

My opinion of Microsoft's OSP is in general concordance with that expressed by the Software Freedom Law Center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html). I don't feel patent concerns would go away should .NET patents be covered by the Microsoft OSP, though such coverage would be better than similar promises made only to a single GNU/Linux distributor and only for their commercial offering. Nonetheless, .NET patents are NOT covered, so I don't see how anybody's opinion of MS's OSP is relevant to Mono.


I can't provide a link. ECMA certification requires that they make it available, but those terms are not published publicly (only to ECMA members, or on request direct to the applicant).
Yes, ECMA requires that patent licensing be offered on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; but that does not mean any such licensing exists, nor that the terms of such licensing have no conditions whatsoever.

The public library loans books out for free; that doesn't mean anyone can grab books off the shelves and take them home. I could offer free beer to everyone in the world, but such an offer is meaningless unless you know the terms (e.g., if you go to the Ruptured Duck Tavern in Bedford, Montana at noon on November 2 wearing a pink chiffon dress then I will give you a jigger of Oly -- but hey, it's offered for free and there is no discrimination).

The reason you can't provide a link to a royalty-free, no-strings-attached license for use of Microsoft's .NET patents is not because ECMA keeps the information private; it is because no such license exists. Microsoft has kept in reserve the right to negotiate the terms of licensing for their ECMA patents.


But the first question that those third parties must ask is whether another commercial deployment of the CLI standard--say, for Linux or Unix--could infringe on a Microsoft patent. According to Microsoft's director of intellectual property Michele Herman, who I interviewed earlier this year, the answer is a qualified yes. "If someone implemented a product that conforms to the specification, we believe we have a patent or one pending that's essential to implementing the specification." Herman also cautions that "to the extent that other vendors that have developed other applications or middleware and have patents on them, those vendors could also choose to enforce those patents if the relevant intellectual property is essential to deploying an implementation of the CLI."

According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with Microsoft. "But," says Herman, "while RAND sometimes means there could be a financial obligation, [Microsoft] …will be offering a conventional non-royalty non-fee RAND license. We've always made that clear to anyone who has asked." In other words, there will be no financial obligation.

If the specification is royalty-free, then why need a license at all? Herman says that there are some standard parts to such a "conventional" license. Let's look at a few.
Read the original article (http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html) to see what type of royalty-free licensing terms Microsoft reserves to negotiate with those who would employ .NET patented technology.

And if Microsoft has already granted (but not published) royalty-free, unrestricted licensing for everybody (as the Mono Project (http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) assures) then why did the Microsoft-Linspire Patent Covenant and the Microsoft-Xandros Patent Covenant specifically exclude "Mono" from coverage? Surely if it's already freely available to everybody you wouldn't have anything to gain by excluding Linspire and Xandros developers and users.


How many apps on your system have you specifically researched & cleared from all potential patent risk, our of interest? Are you certain that Mozilla's XPCOM isn't infringing on, say, Microsoft's COM+?

I do not personally recognize software patents as legitimate; however, I do recognize their threat and do concern myself with the risk of the software on my system. When I encounter software which has questionable patent encumbrances, I do investigate the situation (as in the preceding FAT32 example).

With regard to Mozilla, their Vice President Mike Schroepfer has stated that "Mozilla does not have any patents or any form of indemnification for anything in its products that may violate other company's patents" (quoted at this year's MIX 08 conference in Las Vegas, Nevada). Of course, the Mono Project makes the same claim -- and as you asked earlier, "who to trust, who to trust".

Well, three things make me more uncomfortable with the Mono Project's assertion than with that of Mozilla's.

First, the Mono Project misrepresents that Microsoft has granted unencumbered patent licensing for their .NET technology. The fact someone might be "lying" seems pretty important to you, and I agree. I don't like when someone lies to me, and the assertion made by the Mono Project (http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) that "basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose" is a LIE. I am not aware of anybody from the Mozilla project ever lying to me.

Second, the corporate sponsor of the Mono Project (Novell) struck a divisive patent agreement with Microsoft. The deal distinguishes between "commercial" and "non-commercial" user and developers, and it distinguishes between users depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else. Mozilla, to my knowledge, has never sought such exclusive protection (in the words of the previously cited Mike Schroepfer, "We are as protected or unprotected as anyone else. It's a fairly equal scenario.") and has worked to resolve divisive issues in the Free Software community (the recent FireFox "EULA" issue being an example). To use an analogy, I am more comfortable following a leader across a potential minefield if that leader isn't first hopping into a tank.

Third, Mozilla products are expendable with the only impact on my system being the loss of that product, with ready substitutes available. If I lose Firefox/Seamonkey, I lose a browser. Mono is a development platform and should I not be able to use it anymore I lose not only the ability to write programs with it, I lose all of the programs which have its libraries as a dependency -- the more Mono programs I have on my system, the more disruptive losing Mono would be.


And, perhaps most importantly, what specific business reason would Microsoft have to sue you for patent infringement?

I agree that Microsoft's business plan for leveraging their .NET patents is the most important factor. I also agree that their plan is not likely to include actual lawsuits for infringement of those patents. However, I do consider the likelihood that they will (indeed, already do) employ threats of lawsuit to drive users away from distros shipping Mono (except, for now, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (http://www.moreinterop.com/Benefits/WhyNovellAndMicrosoft.aspx)).

I do not find it difficult to envision that a MS customer wishing to switch over some servers to Ubuntu would be "threatened" by MS that doing so would make them liable for infringement. Or that potential Ubuntu customer might be encouraged to use Novell's SLED instead, solely on the criteria that Novell has received a license for Microsoft's .NET patents. It is this factor which to me makes Ubuntu's, or any other GNU/Linux distro's, promotion of Mono undesirable.

directhex
October 23rd, 2008, 09:42 AM
No (but of no relevance anyway).

I disagree with Mr Chestowitz's assertion that corporate "promises" hold no legal weight; though they are not as reassuring as licenses or contracts. Public (even private) statements made by corporate personnel can play a role in adjudication.

My opinion of Microsoft's OSP is in general concordance with that expressed by the Software Freedom Law Center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html). I don't feel patent concerns would go away should .NET patents be covered by the Microsoft OSP, though such coverage would be better than similar promises made only to a single GNU/Linux distributor and only for their commercial offering. Nonetheless, .NET patents are NOT covered, so I don't see how anybody's opinion of MS's OSP is relevant to Mono.

It might be relevant in the future. Couldn't possibly comment.

Just trying to get an idea of whether it would make a difference to people, or whether the "Us vs Them" attitude against Microsoft is more fun.


Yes, ECMA requires that patent licensing be offered on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; but that does not mean any such licensing exists, nor that the terms of such licensing have no conditions whatsoever.

The public library loans books out for free; that doesn't mean anyone can grab books off the shelves and take them home. I could offer free beer to everyone in the world, but such an offer is meaningless unless you know the terms (e.g., if you go to the Ruptured Duck Tavern in Bedford, Montana at noon on November 2 wearing a pink chiffon dress then I will give you a jigger of Oly -- but hey, it's offered for free and there is no discrimination).

Sure there's discrimination. I need to wear a dress. That's the point.


The reason you can't provide a link to a royalty-free, no-strings-attached license for use of Microsoft's .NET patents is not because ECMA keeps the information private; it is because no such license exists. Microsoft has kept in reserve the right to negotiate the terms of licensing for their ECMA patents.

Read the original article (http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html) to see what type of royalty-free licensing terms Microsoft reserves to negotiate with those who would employ .NET patented technology.

"From a business perspective, Herman asks if the publicity of such a lawsuit would be worth it to Microsoft"

Would it?

Let's be frank here, actual patent enforcement when there are less "dangerous" options, harms adoption - how many people give a crap about expensive MP3Pro when there are other formats to use without the patent sword hanging over them? Ever even *seen* a player with MP3Pro support?

As for Microsoft, they're starting to reap the benefits of a "be nice" approach to Free Software paired with .NET - things like jQuery getting bundled into Visual Studio. It's not as if Microsoft don't understand the benefits, either - they've been distributing some of their own stuff as Free Software since 2004 (and have used those same projects for headline apps like Office 2k7)


And if Microsoft has already granted (but not published) royalty-free, unrestricted licensing for everybody (as the Mono Project (http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) assures) then why did the Microsoft-Linspire Patent Covenant and the Microsoft-Xandros Patent Covenant specifically exclude "Mono" from coverage? Surely if it's already freely available to everybody you wouldn't have anything to gain by excluding Linspire and Xandros developers and users.

I won't give you £150 for access to your patent portfolio, but I'll give you £100 for access to all of it excluding the bits covering golf carts for pets.

Deal?

Just because Linspire and Xandros are dim (and I've spoken to senior people in Linspire before, they're businessmen not technologists, and certainly can't afford a detailed patent analysis), doesn't make them right.

Patent licensing from people like Microsoft is free money for them. Why would they stop that gravy train?

Never had someone try to sell you an extended warranty on something that already comes with a long one?


I do not personally recognize software patents as legitimate; however, I do recognize their threat and do concern myself with the risk of the software on my system. When I encounter software which has questionable patent encumbrances, I do investigate the situation (as in the preceding FAT32 example).

We agree on one thing at least - that software patents are nonsense.

But I really sincerely doubt that you've done the proper analysis on the thousands of packages on your system, other than headline items from "big" players. Where "big" players aren't the dangerous ones - the dangerous ones are small troll companies like Eolas (whose patents over plugins specifically don't include Free Software, as per their FAQ, FYI).


With regard to Mozilla, their Vice President Mike Schroepfer has stated that "Mozilla does not have any patents or any form of indemnification for anything in its products that may violate other company's patents" (quoted at this year's MIX 08 conference in Las Vegas, Nevada). Of course, the Mono Project makes the same claim -- and as you asked earlier, "who to trust, who to trust".

Well, three things make me more uncomfortable with the Mono Project's assertion than with that of Mozilla's.

You make it all sound terribly malicious. Microsoft have never issued any specific or general threats over Mono, citing any specific or general patent violation. And that includes Novell's patent deal, which was full of hand-waving and light (read: empty) on specifics.

As Torvalds said about SCO, "Show me the code".

They won't, because people would change the code & the patent would become worthless - see also: Freetype vs and US5155805, US5159668 and US5325479 (patents Apple has thrown around to help make fonts look crap without a patent license from them)


First, the Mono Project misrepresents that Microsoft has granted unencumbered patent licensing for their .NET technology. The fact someone might be "lying" seems pretty important to you, and I agree. I don't like when someone lies to me, and the assertion made by the Mono Project (http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) that "basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose" is a LIE. I am not aware of anybody from the Mozilla project ever lying to me.

They lied when eliminating Firefox from Debian. Ubuntu's FF was always more patched, yet they cited the volume of patches as their major driver towards castrating the Debian project. But that's not really the topic here, the topic is that all discussions of ECMA 334/335 patents seem to go back to the same link, a quote from one of the patent holders saying RRAND applies, which without a "better" link, you don't believe.

Personally, I don't see the business benefit in them doing otherwise. But perhaps I'm looking at Microsoft as too much of a business and not enough of a cackling horde of rat-people.


Second, the corporate sponsor of the Mono Project (Novell) struck a divisive patent agreement with Microsoft. The deal distinguishes between "commercial" and "non-commercial" user and developers, and it distinguishes between users depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else. Mozilla, to my knowledge, has never sought such exclusive protection (in the words of the previously cited Mike Schroepfer, "We are as protected or unprotected as anyone else. It's a fairly equal scenario.") and has worked to resolve divisive issues in the Free Software community (the recent FireFox "EULA" issue being an example). To use an analogy, I am more comfortable following a leader across a potential minefield if that leader isn't first hopping into a tank.

Personally, I wouldn't ever let nonsense like patents even enter my mind when looking at distributions - but apparently for some business customers, it makes a difference. If they actually READ the terms of the patent deal, they might not be so comfortable, but if people say "we'll buy from you if you do this", then which profit-making business would argue?


Third, Mozilla products are expendable with the only impact on my system being the loss of that product, with ready substitutes available. If I lose Firefox/Seamonkey, I lose a browser. Mono is a development platform and should I not be able to use it anymore I lose not only the ability to write programs with it, I lose all of the programs which have its libraries as a dependency -- the more Mono programs I have on my system, the more disruptive losing Mono would be.

If COM+ patents get seriously thrown around, that's ALL Mozilla products (XPCOM) and OOo too (UNO).

But they haven't, so people just don't stress over it. Because they all know what nonsense the patent system is.


At this stage we see no significant issues with patents and Mono. There is a risk of a patent claim against almost any component of Ubuntu - across every jurisdiction in which Ubuntu ships, the patent minefield is too complex. Our view is that we can deal with patent suits if they arise, but removing or re-engineering the relevant components.

Yesterday’s announcement from Microsoft suggests that they have come round to the view that patent litigation is not an effective strategy for them.

The real patent risk to free software, in my view, is not a large-scale industry participant like SONY or IBM or Microsoft, instead it is a small, hard-to-identify patent holder who does not actually need to get products out the door. We cannot live in fear of that threat, we can only respond to it as an when it arises.

And, it seems, people in control of Ubuntu don't stress over it either.


I agree that Microsoft's business plan for leveraging their .NET patents is the most important factor. I also agree that their plan is not likely to include actual lawsuits for infringement of those patents. However, I do consider the likelihood that they will (indeed, already do) employ threats of lawsuit to drive users away from distros shipping Mono (except, for now, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop (http://www.moreinterop.com/Benefits/WhyNovellAndMicrosoft.aspx)).

I do not find it difficult to envision that a MS customer wishing to switch over some servers to Ubuntu would be "threatened" by MS that doing so would make them liable for infringement. Or that potential Ubuntu customer might be encouraged to use Novell's SLED instead, solely on the criteria that Novell has received a license for Microsoft's .NET patents. It is this factor which to me makes Ubuntu's, or any other GNU/Linux distro's, promotion of Mono undesirable.

Which patents specifically? Can you give me a list detailing exactly which patents Microsoft say were violated, and which patents Novell's customers are getting protection for?

Or are you being taken in by hyperbole put out by blowhard relics like Ballmer?

The funny thing is, Novell's patent portfolio is much more damaging to Microsoft's customers than the reverse - especially Commerce One. The infinitely modular design of Free Software makes it very easy for Novell to simply change things, should they ever receive a specific charge of infringement, but the same can't be said of people running Windows on e-commerce sites.

Software patents are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. In Microsoft's case, they really are the whipping boy - everyone sues THEM for patent infringement, not the reverse. There are people who are *actual* assholes with patents, including those who use them against Free Software (like AV vendor Trend Micro's campaign against ClamAV users).

I'll end on a quote:

How do you tell if a piece of software violates a patent? Run wc -l on the source; if the number is greater than 1000, it probably does.

3rdalbum
October 23rd, 2008, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Nat Friedman
How do you tell if a piece of software violates a patent? Run wc -l on the source; if the number is greater than 1000, it probably does.


chris@chris-desktop:~/Python_Projects/Blacklight3$ wc -l blacklight3.py
201 blacklight3.py


Phew!

directhex
October 23rd, 2008, 01:40 PM
chris@chris-desktop:~/Python_Projects/Blacklight3$ wc -l blacklight3.py
201 blacklight3.py


Phew!


jms@osc-franzibald:/tmp$ wc -l hello.cs
8 hello.cs

Patent-free C# :popcorn:

saulgoode
October 24th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Sure there's discrimination. I need to wear a dress. That's the point.
It is your decision that you can't wear a dress; that doesn't make my offer discriminatory. The same terms are available to everybody.

Likewise, RAND licensing terms which might prohibit sublicensing, commercial use, or alternate fields of endeavor would not be considered discriminatory -- yet Free Software (which chooses to disallow such stipulations) would be excluded by those terms. RAND does not mean "safe for use in Free Software". That's my point.


Let's be frank here, actual patent enforcement when there are less "dangerous" options, harms adoption - ...

It depends upon what particular product Microsoft is focused on getting adopted. You appear to think that Microsoft's main focus is obtaining widespread adoption of .NET. I disagree. They make much greater profit from their operating systems then they do from marketing their .NET development tools and therefore it is more harmful to their business to have .NET adopted cross-platform should doing so result in losses in their operating system market.


Never had someone try to sell you an extended warranty on something that already comes with a long one?
To be honest, that's how I feel about the Novell-MS patent covenant. If Novell's GNU/Linux product doesn't infringe on any Microsoft patents then why is Novell paying over $40 million in licenses? It sounds like an extended warranty on something that doesn't need one.


We agree on one thing at least - that software patents are nonsense.
Very much so.


But I really sincerely doubt that you've done the proper analysis on the thousands of packages on your system,...
I consider "proper analysis" to be analysis sufficient for me to satisfy that I am behaving consistent with my beliefs. So by definition I've done just that. Perhaps my "proper analysis" wouldn't satisfy others but when attempting to do a "proper analysis" of the Mono Project, I've encountered a seemingly insurmountable stumbling block.

With every other Free Software project I researched, I can find in their forums, FAQs, or mailing lists open discussions about patent and other legal concerns which contain sincere, though not definitive, analysis about those concerns.

When I try to investigate such issues for the Mono Project (using the same methodology as for other projects) I am accused of employing a double-standard; I am dismissed as just being "anti-Microsoft"; and I am met with the accusation that I'm spreading lies. The only analysis provided by the Mono Project is, in my opinion, quite "improper" in that it includes misrepresentation of the known facts.


You make it all sound terribly malicious. Microsoft have never issued any specific or general threats over Mono, citing any specific or general patent violation. And that includes Novell's patent deal, which was full of hand-waving and light (read: empty) on specifics.
I don't consider it malicious, but it is certainly not in keeping with goals of Free Software. Microsoft has the right to choose not to sue Novell's customers, just as they have the right to choose not to sue people wearing chiffon dresses. I don't have any say over who MS sues. I do have the choice whether or not I will support the actions of a company which try to exploit a promise not to sue from Microsoft for their own exclusive benefit and to the detriment of other Free Software endeavors.

I also wouldn't characterize paying at least $40 million in patent licensing as "full of hand-waving and light (read: empty) on specifics".


From Fortune Magazine: (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index2.htm)

Over the summer Novell and Microsoft hammered out a clever, complicated - and highly controversial - deal. They knew that if Novell paid Microsoft a royalty in exchange for Microsoft's promise not to sue Novell for patent infringement, Novell would be in violation of the GPL, Stallman's farsighted free-software license.

So they came up with a twist: Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement. That would be okay, because it's something that the GPL does not address. On those terms, Novell agreed to give Microsoft a percentage of all its Linux revenue through 2011 (or a minimum of $40 million).


As Torvalds said about SCO, "Show me the code".

They won't, because people would change the code & the patent would become worthless ...
Your statement demonstrates an inconsistency which is impossible for me to reconcile. If Microsoft has granted a "free and for any purpose" license for its patents covering the ECMA 335 CLI then those patents are already "worthless". Either Microsoft has sacrificed their rights to employ those patents to their benefit or the Mono Project is wrong when stating an all-encompassing license has been granted.


...But that's not really the topic here, the topic is that all discussions of ECMA 334/335 patents seem to go back to the same link, a quote from one of the patent holders saying RRAND applies, which without a "better" link, you don't believe.

The point is I DO believe Jim Miller's statement that "... our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a 'royalty-free and otherwise RAND' basis for this purpose."

What I don't believe is that Mr Miller's statement provides any indication that those patents are "worthless" to Microsoft. They can, will, and have negotiated those "available" licenses. And note that even if in some alien dialect of the English language "will be available" could be interpreted as meaning "already exists", the condition "for this purpose" would still render Mr Miller's terms incompatible with the Free Software stipulation that code will not be limited with regard to field of endeavor.


Personally, I don't see the business benefit in them doing otherwise. But perhaps I'm looking at Microsoft as too much of a business and not enough of a cackling horde of rat-people.
I don't view Microsoft so much as a business but more of a giant pyramid scheme, and now that the people at the top of the pyramid have got their money, what's left is pretty much worthless. Nonetheless, we are each entitled to our opinions.


The funny thing is, Novell's patent portfolio is much more damaging to Microsoft's customers than the reverse - especially Commerce One. The infinitely modular design of Free Software makes it very easy for Novell to simply change things, should they ever receive a specific charge of infringement, but the same can't be said of people running Windows on e-commerce sites.

Hopefully, the upcoming verdict in the Bilski trial will be the first step towards completely eradicating business method and software patents.

neighborlee
November 9th, 2008, 10:56 AM
I don't consider it malicious, but it is certainly not in keeping with goals of Free Software. Microsoft has the right to choose not to sue Novell's customers, just as they have the right to choose not to sue people wearing chiffon dresses. I don't have any say over who MS sues. I do have the choice whether or not I will support the actions of a company which try to exploit a promise not to sue from Microsoft for their own exclusive benefit and to the detriment of other Free Software endeavors.

I also wouldn't characterize paying at least $40 million in patent licensing as "full of hand-waving and light (read: empty) on specifics".



I totally agree, and I think its about time Ubuntu respects this and rids linux of the actual cancer that is reflected in the entire mono mess, or at least has the decency to offer a installer script to users for the choice to do it on their own . It's never been a issue with having Mono on the repo's , but having it forced on them during install, when a simple checkbox saying 'no thanks' could be offered.

If you goto the mono 'wiki' you can clearly see that:

Richard Stallman (who is not involved with the project) has claimed it is "dangerous" to use Mono because of the possible threat of Microsoft patents[6]. < so have those here supporting mono decided that Richard is all of a sudden irrelevant ?

and:

" On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell’s customers for patent infringement.[7] According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza,[8] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers. It was criticized by some members of the free software community because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Novell and their Patent Agreement with Microsoft). "

cheers
nl

directhex
November 9th, 2008, 11:33 AM
I totally agree, and I think its about time Ubuntu respects this and rids linux of the actual cancer that is reflected in the entire mono mess, or at least has the decency to offer a installer script to users for the choice to do it on their own . It's never been a issue with having Mono on the repo's , but having it forced on them during install, when a simple checkbox saying 'no thanks' could be offered.

How about a tickbox for OOo and a tickbox for Firefox and a tickbox for... Hey, it's the Fedora installer! Ubuntu installs a single image, with a selection of best-of-breed apps. They won't preemptively castrate it because a handful of conspiracy theorists are jumping at shadows.

Since you're in the mood for quoting, let's quote!


At this stage we see no significant issues with patents and Mono. There is a risk of a patent claim against almost any component of Ubuntu - across every jurisdiction in which Ubuntu ships, the patent minefield is too complex. Our view is that we can deal with patent suits if they arise, but removing or re-engineering the relevant components.

Don't like it? Fork your own version of the distro, because it's pretty obvious the project lead thinks you're full of it. There are plenty of guides on modifying Ubuntu discs. See how much traction you get.


If you goto the mono 'wiki' you can clearly see that:

Richard Stallman (who is not involved with the project) has claimed it is "dangerous" to use Mono because of the possible threat of Microsoft patents[6]. < so have those here supporting mono decided that Richard is all of a sudden irrelevant ?

Yay, you can quote a single word out of context. HOORAY FOR YOU!

Let's quote!


Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language.

Whoops, is he saying Mono is a good thing? It certainly seems that way... Context is everything


" On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell’s customers for patent infringement.[7] According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza,[8] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers. It was criticized by some members of the free software community because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Novell and their Patent Agreement with Microsoft). "

The funny thing about that deal is it doesn't actually protect Novell or Microsoft. Novell can still sue Microsoft for violating their Commerce One patents, and Microsoft can still sue Novell for violating their FAT32 patents. Only customers are covered - not developers.

But, in a fairly common move for those who can't understand that Microsoft are a business and not a colony of evil lizard-people from beyond the stars, you've got to ask yourself "show me the money". So, where's the financial incentive for Microsoft to sue Novell, or indeed Mono users & customers in general? The PR backlash would completely screw with them, and given they're actually benefiting from Free Software these days (especially Mono, which is inspiring features in next-gen MS.NET), why would they do it? Unless they're just a race of hideous lizard-people of course.

Let's re-quote!


The thing about the FUD brigade is how inconsistent their arguments are. Circular logic rules the day. Try visiting their web sites and you might get lost in circular links, too (never cite a reputable source when you can cite yourself!). Here’s the typical exchange:

<them> Mono is dangerous because it is covered by patents

<me> So are lots of Linux apps. Why is Mono special?

<them> They’re MICROSOFT patents!

<me> There are lots of Microsoft patents in things. Why is Mono special?

<them> It is inconvenient for me to acknowledge that those exist, so i will pretend they do not. However, Mono is special because it goes out of its way to emulate patented Microsoft software!

<me> Really? Don’t things like Wine do that too, without such bile-filled reaction? And unlike Wine, Mono implements a published standard

<them> The standards are a trap! They can charge you for patent license fees!

<me> True. But they’ve said they won’t. And that’s more than you’ll get out of most people who own patents which are, to all extents and purposes, violated in Free Software projects

<them> But if you start to rely on Mono, then Microsoft can disable you down the line when they suddenly sue!

<me> And that’s different from loads of other software in GNU/Linux how exactly? Smarter people than me or you have a “don’t worry about maybes” attitude.

<them> But Mono is dangerous because it is covered by patents!

And so on. Ad infinitum. Mix in something about the patent cross-license deal (which explicitly did not admit to any specific patent violation) and you’ve got an average day in a Mono IRC channel. And thanks to the carefully orchestrated FUD campaign, people who simply don’t understand the issue parrot it (which is, of course, the idea).

Frankly, I trust Microsoft to act with honour more than I expect serial-liars like Roy and his goons (which, yes, includes you I'm afraid) to do so. And I HAVE read about Microsoft's business dealings over the years. Feel free to tell him I said that when you report in, by the way.

arito
November 9th, 2008, 03:40 PM
They won't preemptively castrate it because a handful of conspiracy theorists are jumping at shadows.


Don't like it? Fork your own version of the distro, because it's pretty obvious the project lead thinks you're full of it.


Yay, you can quote a single word out of context. HOORAY FOR YOU!


Frankly, I trust Microsoft to act with honour more than I expect serial-liars like Roy and his goons (which, yes, includes you I'm afraid) to do so.

Whatever the subject at hand and regardless who is seeing things more clearly, this kind of talk only hurts Ubuntu.

neighborlee
November 9th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Frankly, I trust Microsoft to act with honour more than I expect serial-liars like Roy and his goons (which, yes, includes you I'm afraid) to do so. And I HAVE read about Microsoft's business dealings over the years. Feel free to tell him I said that when you report in, by the way.

I dont see how you can mention M$ and honor in the same breath, in a linux forum, but hey go you ;)

You must be very desperate to attack me like this, given you have not one shread of evidence compared to what I have which is in spades. You can go on quoting phantom connections that surely I must have with 'Roy' and his 'goonies', but you know what happens when you assume right ? ;) You forgot to take into consideration that I am capable of thinking on my own, outside the 'box' .

I am not here to attack you or ubuntu, I am here because I feel Mono threatens the very thing I care about deeply which is Linux, not some attack dog who makes assumptions about my sincerity ;) You forgot to realize, that your opinion is not necessary to my function, at least insofar as relates to your attack smear attempts, as they only serve to make you look the role of the viper. I am offering an opinion as are you, but the only difference is the caustic nature on your end [ pro mono supporters tend to detract into the negative when things aren't going their way ] ..congrats for taking the high road .

cheers
nl

directhex
November 9th, 2008, 06:04 PM
I dont see how you can mention M$ and honor in the same breath, in a linux forum, but hey go you ;)

Easily. Ever heard of "Honour amongst thieves"? I can trust in Microsoft's behaviour. I know how they behave as a company. I can't say the same for people who act in irrational and unexpected ways. A bit like cyclists, really.


You must be very desperate to attack me like this, given you have not one shread of evidence compared to what I have which is in spades.

You have no evidence, you have hearsay, lies, and misstatements by some random student from the internets whom you trust implicitly.

Or, since you claim to have evidence, prove it: which actively enforced patents does Mono violate?


You can go on quoting phantom connections that surely I must have with 'Roy' and his 'goonies', but you know what happens when you assume right ? ;) You forgot to take into consideration that I am capable of thinking on my own, outside the 'box' .


At what point does "phantom" become "rampant", out of interest? Because that sounds an awful lot like you're trying to hide your associations. Perhaps you think people might disregard your assrted reality if they knew who was tainting it?

*neighborlee (n=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Aug 15 18:31
neighborlee not that aI dont ‘respet’ what kde offers, but atm its encubmered IMHO, with qt Aug 20 19:08
*neighborlee (n=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Aug 21 04:28
neighborlee hav e fun take care, lee out and out o_0 Aug 22 19:12
neighborlee hi schestowitz Aug 23 01:08
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Aug 26 19:27
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Aug 28 06:54
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 06 21:57
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 10 21:08
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 13 01:38
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 14 14:55
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 16 23:29
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 18 21:39
*neighborlee (n=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 20 05:16
*neighborlee (n=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 21 03:29
*neighborlee (n=leebojam@c-24-16-56-222.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 22 01:03
*neighborlee (n=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 26 01:24
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Sep 30 19:42
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 07 00:34
*neighborlee (n=chatzill@c-24-16-59-77.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 10 16:38
*neighborlee (n=chatzill@c-24-16-59-77.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 11 06:22
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 14 14:56
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 18 21:08
neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 19 16:22
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 20 05:48
*neighborlee_ (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 21 11:44
*neighborlee (i=neighbor@unaffiliated/neighborlee) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 23 12:57
neighborlee well atm I do most gaming in winblows Oct 30 18:50
*neighborlee (i=chatzill@c-24-16-59-77.hsd1.wa.comcast.net) has joined #boycottnovell Oct 30 00:21


I am not here to attack you or ubuntu,

neighborlee http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/ , interesting page, liniked into from: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.ph… < directhex last post a few weeks ago here, of course mentions in a no mono thread that btw here is the latest version of mono LOL…what a swell person, whom on the former url I showed cleary seems to be talking M$ smack as if he ‘works’ there…to me anyway thats how it seems Oct 23 13:12
neighborlee https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+so… < and here it seems.,’directhex’ is saying though mono releases are slightly…unready..releases that need a HUGE # of patches, mono remains inside ubuntu..I wonder who is doing all these patches considering ubuntu makes very few upstream commits to other mainstream linux projects… Sep 26 01:41
neighborlee also I noticed, this directhex guy, other than ONE other topic, has only posted on nono thread :) .. go figya ;) Aug 15 20:46

Greg Kasyanov said,

August 24, 2008 at 1:34 pm

This isn’t the first time that ‘Neighborlee’ has been caught trolling


I am here because I feel Mono threatens the very thing I care about deeply which is Linux,

Your posts make it pretty clear you don't understand the difference between terms like "Open Source", "Free Software", "Copyright", "Patents", "Standards", and so on. Whom exactly are you trying to protect? Because Linux is just a Free Software kernel. One with many enemies - but usually enemies violating the idea of Free Software. Here's one example of that: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/472


not some attack dog who makes assumptions about my sincerity ;)

Attack dog? WHOSE attack dog, sweet Lee? You seem to have made some assumptions about my motives and associations, let's hear them.


You forgot to realize, that your opinion is not necessary to my function,

Oh, the feeling is more than mutual. I find you guys pretty funny, truth be told. A bit like former lawyer Jack Thompson with his "BAN TEH VIDEO GAMEZ" crusade


at least insofar as relates to your attack smear attempts, as they only serve to make you look the role of the viper.

Yet you're the one denying your associations. Very interesting...


I am offering an opinion as are you, but the only difference is the caustic nature on your end [ pro mono supporters tend to detract into the negative when things aren't going their way ]

And anti-mono supporters tend to shout that something is the case, even though it's obvious to any casual observer that they're claiming black is white.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2008/images/20030425007100510.jpg
"The patents are everywhere, but they only affect software which we decide is nasty!"


..congrats for taking the high road .

Oh, my pleasure. This is far more fun than playing videogames.

cardinals_fan
November 9th, 2008, 08:03 PM
I dont see how you can mention M$ and honor in the same breath, in a linux forum, but hey go you ;)

You must be very desperate to attack me like this, given you have not one shread of evidence compared to what I have which is in spades. You can go on quoting phantom connections that surely I must have with 'Roy' and his 'goonies', but you know what happens when you assume right ? ;) You forgot to take into consideration that I am capable of thinking on my own, outside the 'box' .

I am not here to attack you or ubuntu, I am here because I feel Mono threatens the very thing I care about deeply which is Linux, not some attack dog who makes assumptions about my sincerity ;) You forgot to realize, that your opinion is not necessary to my function, at least insofar as relates to your attack smear attempts, as they only serve to make you look the role of the viper. I am offering an opinion as are you, but the only difference is the caustic nature on your end [ pro mono supporters tend to detract into the negative when things aren't going their way ] ..congrats for taking the high road .

cheers
nl
If you don't want to use Mono, then don't use it. You have that choice on Linux. I personally don't like the unnecessary bloat of Mono, so I don't use it. You can also make that choice.

directhex
November 9th, 2008, 08:49 PM
If you don't want to use Mono, then don't use it. You have that choice on Linux. I personally don't like the unnecessary bloat of Mono, so I don't use it. You can also make that choice.

http://www.meebey.net/jaws/?gadget=Blog&action=SingleView&id=40

There are more bloated frameworks in circulation

Kilon
November 10th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Let me put my own opinion here. .NET is the best framework I have worked. It is very easy to use and it has a very big following. Of course like JAVA , .NET cloned alot of the principles that DELPHI introduce to the world of computing, When I studied Winforms I found alot more copies than I expected from the VCL . DELPHI for me is the best language there is.

I do not believe .NET should be banned, I think that .NET is the future, not because it is a Microsoft Product but because it is a very good product. If UBUNTU wants to attract more Windows users then , it should attract more developers who will make alot more impressive applications for UBUNTU. The .NET framework I think is the best way to attract Windows developers and converting them to UBUNTU developer , without relaly converting cause like JAVA .NET through MONO will be alot more cross platform with zero effort.

So do not close the door to more developers , let us make it easier for the them to enter the wonderful world of UBUNTU. I must say I hate Windows but I am in love with .NET. I think it is the future.

Microsoft will not sue anyone , they made deals with Apple and they probably would like to make friend with the rest of the computer world. Suing MONO is a very bad idea. Microsoft can be ugly but it is not stupid.

neighborlee
November 10th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Let me put my own opinion here. .NET is the best framework I have worked. It is very easy to use and it has a very big following. Of course like JAVA , .NET cloned alot of the principles that DELPHI introduce to the world of computing, When I studied Winforms I found alot more copies than I expected from the VCL . DELPHI for me is the best language there is.

I do not believe .NET should be banned, I think that .NET is the future, not because it is a Microsoft Product but because it is a very good product. If UBUNTU wants to attract more Windows users then , it should attract more developers who will make alot more impressive applications for UBUNTU. The .NET framework I think is the best way to attract Windows developers and converting them to UBUNTU developer , without relaly converting cause like JAVA .NET through MONO will be alot more cross platform with zero effort.

So do not close the door to more developers , let us make it easier for the them to enter the wonderful world of UBUNTU. I must say I hate Windows but I am in love with .NET. I think it is the future.

Microsoft will not sue anyone , they made deals with Apple and they probably would like to make friend with the rest of the computer world. Suing MONO is a very bad idea. Microsoft can be ugly but it is not stupid.

Well, at least your point of view is reasonable and not hateful, I can deal with that, and frankly its the only way I wish to discuss this matter.

I have no qualms on any level, with mono in the repos, but to force it on anyone as part of the install, when to some reasonable, intellectual and fair minded individuals its not 'safe' nor is it free ( if you look at the mono wiki, and if you consider that its MUST be received and is safe ONLY for novel customers ) under the terms of the GNU, then I find it impossible for linux users not to grasp how that would make some of us feel, and therefore want to avoid it.

Now if you disagree with that, we can have a discussion on those grounds, but to throw around ridiculous ad hominem attacks like some around here have been doing , then you immediately lose a huge percentage of the community that dont want to descend into such talks, and therefore only leave the discussion open to those who share the mentality of scare and divide. If that is your intent then fine but those are not the principles that linux was founded on and they should not permeate its halls.

If you want to have a reasonable 'debate' about this issue with friends of mine that feel similarly ( and I dont mean 'roys friends' if that is bothering you or how you see the issue ) you are more than welcome ( and I do mean anyone ), to come to irc.freenode.net , on channel #lemmings.

cheers
nl

smartboyathome
November 10th, 2008, 05:48 PM
Well, at least your point of view is reasonable and not hateful, I can deal with that, and frankly its the only way I wish to discuss this matter.

I have no qualms on any level, with mono in the repos, but to force it on anyone as part of the install, when to some reasonable, intellectual and fair minded individuals its not 'safe' nor is it free ( if you look at the mono wiki, and if you consider that its MUST be received and is safe ONLY for novel customers ) under the terms of the GNU, then I find it impossible for linux users not to grasp how that would make some of us feel, and therefore want to avoid it.

Now if you disagree with that, we can have a discussion on those grounds, but to throw around ridiculous ad hominem attacks like some around here have been doing , then you immediately lose a huge percentage of the community that dont want to descend into such talks, and therefore only leave the discussion open to those who share the mentality of scare and divide. If that is your intent then fine but those are not the principles that linux was founded on and they should not permeate its halls.

If you want to have a reasonable 'debate' about this issue with friends of mine that feel similarly ( and I dont mean 'roys friends' if that is bothering you or how you see the issue ) you are more than welcome ( and I do mean anyone ), to come to irc.freenode.net , on channel #lemmings.

cheers
nl

What about the fact that gNewSense, which is officially a part of GNU, contains Mono? If RMS didn't like Mono, wouldn't it not be part of 'his' distro? What about Mark, don't you think he would get rid of Mono if it were as dangerous as you claim?

Kilon
November 10th, 2008, 05:56 PM
Well, at least your point of view is

I have no qualms on any level, with mono in the repos, but to force it on anyone as part of the install.....



Ok maybe we can have a middle solution here. Not include the MONON in the distro but when the user first tries to execute a program which needs MONO and .NET framework, the update automatically with no fuss downloads and installs MONO in the user computer. Sounds fair ? It should not be too difficult to accomplice. After this I think everyone will be happy.

directhex
November 10th, 2008, 06:33 PM
What about the fact that gNewSense, which is officially a part of GNU, contains Mono? If RMS didn't like Mono, wouldn't it not be part of 'his' distro? What about Mark, don't you think he would get rid of Mono if it were as dangerous as you claim?

They're both being paid off by Microsoft, obviously


Ok maybe we can have a middle solution here. Not include the MONON in the distro but when the user first tries to execute a program which needs MONO and .NET framework, the update automatically with no fuss downloads and installs MONO in the user computer. Sounds fair ? It should not be too difficult to accomplice. After this I think everyone will be happy.

Not possible given how Apt works, and a waste of time to cater to a few people on the sidelines screaming about things they don't understand.

If Lee wants to fork his own Mono-free Ubuntu, he's free to do so. But given none of the senior people at Canonical, nor seemingly RMS, nor any of the many Ubuntu devs who go out of their way to add Mono apps (like Banshee or Gnome-Do) to a default Ubuntu install after installation, I think it's dumb to suggest that the official distro actually believe the hyperbole & deception of the "equal but separate" crowd who have no problem with Mono in the repos honest, you just can't install or use it

neighborlee
November 10th, 2008, 06:35 PM
Ok maybe we can have a middle solution here. Not include the MONON in the distro but when the user first tries to execute a program which needs MONO and .NET framework, the update automatically with no fuss downloads and installs MONO in the user computer. Sounds fair ? It should not be too difficult to accomplice. After this I think everyone will be happy.

Im fully online with that.

cheers
nl