Call for banning MONO [Archive] - Page 2

directhex

November 10th, 2008, 07:34 PM

Just get out of the conversation, if you cant be nice.

Apparently I'm "just a local viper , spouting poison". According to some guy on the Internets, anyway. What more would you expect?

But really now, what conversation? You want to start it again? Okay, here goes:

* I believe Mono is a well-executed Free Software implementation of some very nice international standards
* I believe Mono helps Free Software in two ways - by making Free platforms like Ubuntu more attractive for Windows developers with existing .NET infrastructure and skills, and by making it very easy to develop high quality applications for Linux
* I believe, like people such as Shuttleworth, that the "patent risk" surrounding mono is at best overstated, and at worst made up by "us-and-them" people who have no love of Free Software - instead they have a hatred of Microsoft Corp
* I believe that Microsoft Corp have on staff some very talented engineers, and also some very devious business managers. I have nothing positive to say about the "old guard" businessmen like Steve Ballmer.
* I believe Microsoft stand to lose many many more times by attempting to exert patent claims over Free Software projects than they stand to gain by doing so. The PR backlash would be a starting point, the retaliation from holders of patents violated by Microsoft (and customers) is a good ending point. This includes Novell, who are free to sue Microsoft for patent violation (their deal means Microsoft customers are safe, not the company itself)
* I also believe that Mono is under no greater patent-related danger than any other app, including the kernel, on an Ubuntu install. Microsoft are all bark and no bite on this topic. Other companies have acted in significantly more odious ways against Free Software - Apple's threats against Freetype, or Trend's threats against ClamAV, as examples.
* I believe that Microsoft Corp is a business, and legally must act in its shareholders' best interests - acting against apps like OOo or Firefox or Mono is not in their best interests for the reasons stated.
* I believe that Ubuntu should ship with the best Free Software possible, to lead to the best user experience and make the most attractive Free desktop - regardless of the largely irrelevant questions such as what language the app is written in. If you start to arbitrarily ban Free Software because there might be a threat in some countries of end-users being sued because there might be a violation of some undisclosed patents, then you're lucky if you keep anything more than /bin/true
* I believe that referring to Microsoft Corp as "M$" and continual references to "Micro$haft == Nov-hell" diminishes legitimate discussion surrounding software patents (which I have always opposed). Sometimes, the messenger harms the message. Boycott Novell is a message-harming case in point. Jack Thompson's crusade on trying to ban video games is another.

This kind of garbage is not part of this community, and its not welcome. Or is this what ubuntu has turned into ?

You're dealing with Free Software. You have complete freedom to fork or modify things. If you want to make a Mono-free Ubuntu, it's a relatively simple change - although be careful of making the root SquashFS image too big to fit on a CD after swapping out packages. But, short version: if the desktop team feel that the best package for a given job is written with Python or Haskell or Scheme or C#, then that's the app they'll pick for the official releases.

ANY app, regardless of what it's written in, will disappear from the default install when one of the following happens
* A better app comes along, and can fit on the install CD without being too big
* A legal threat is received against the app or a component of the app, which cannot easily be worked around

That's not Mono-specific, it's the policy applied to all of Ubuntu. I'd like to see more frequent objective comparisons between packages, to determine what goes onto a CD (for example, Mono-based Beagle was replaced with the superior C-based Tracker - but I'd like to see Rhythmbox compared to its peers like Banshee, or Pidgin compared to its peers like Galaxium). Where the Mono-based app is simply technically inferior, it gets dumped.

If you strongly disagree with Mono-based apps on the default install, then your course is clear. Either fork your own install media, or help to improve the competing apps until they beat out the Mono apps, and win on unambiguous, un-arguable *technical* merit. Attempting to convince people using oft-discredited, region-specific, vague arguments from a student with too much time won't work in your favour. If you can provide evidence of a *credible* threat relating to Mono (which doesn't apply to things in a default Ubuntu install like NTFS support), then those arguments might hold water with the applicable core developers - but nobody will ban apps based on imaginary threats nobody has ever received

neighborlee

November 10th, 2008, 07:37 PM

Sorry but the Mono haters don't have the right to ban anything. If they don't want to use it then remove it. If they still can't get satisfied then move to another distro. Simple solution isn't it. You cannot get mad because something is installed by default. Its not your distro. So forget it. Its here to stay and you can't do anything about it. Quit your crying and move along.:-({|=

It seems only the mono supporters are the ones doing the screaming ...what do you have to lose so much that you feel it necessary to descend into this style of communication , unlike the very reasoned and calm post from Kilon ?

They plan to have in place a framework for installation options, so why not go that route?

And btw , this isn't about hating mono or M$, as if I did I"d not be using 'any' of their software/OS's, its about the facts as they releate to mono.

cheers
nl

neighborlee

November 10th, 2008, 07:43 PM

Apparently I'm "just a local viper , spouting poison". According to some guy on the Internets, anyway. What more would you expect?

But really now, what conversation? You want to start it again? Okay, here goes:

* I believe Mono is a well-executed Free Software implementation of some very nice international standards
* I believe Mono helps Free Software in two ways - by making Free platforms like Ubuntu more attractive for Windows developers with existing .NET infrastructure and skills, and by making it very easy to develop high quality applications for Linux
* I believe, like people such as Shuttleworth, that the "patent risk" surrounding mono is at best overstated, and at worst made up by "us-and-them" people who have no love of Free Software - instead they have a hatred of Microsoft Corp
* I believe that Microsoft Corp have on staff some very talented engineers, and also some very devious business managers. I have nothing positive to say about the "old guard" businessmen like Steve Ballmer.
* I believe Microsoft stand to lose many many more times by attempting to exert patent claims over Free Software projects than they stand to gain by doing so. The PR backlash would be a starting point, the retaliation from holders of patents violated by Microsoft (and customers) is a good ending point. This includes Novell, who are free to sue Microsoft for patent violation (their deal means Microsoft customers are safe, not the company itself)
* I also believe that Mono is under no greater patent-related danger than any other app, including the kernel, on an Ubuntu install. Microsoft are all bark and no bite on this topic. Other companies have acted in significantly more odious ways against Free Software - Apple's threats against Freetype, or Trend's threats against ClamAV, as examples.
* I believe that Microsoft Corp is a business, and legally must act in its shareholders' best interests - acting against apps like OOo or Firefox or Mono is not in their best interests for the reasons stated.
* I believe that Ubuntu should ship with the best Free Software possible, to lead to the best user experience and make the most attractive Free desktop - regardless of the largely irrelevant questions such as what language the app is written in. If you start to arbitrarily ban Free Software because there might be a threat in some countries of end-users being sued because there might be a violation of some undisclosed patents, then you're lucky if you keep anything more than /bin/true
* I believe that referring to Microsoft Corp as "M$" and continual references to "Micro$haft == Nov-hell" diminishes legitimate discussion surrounding software patents (which I have always opposed). Sometimes, the messenger harms the message. Boycott Novell is a message-harming case in point. Jack Thompson's crusade on trying to ban video games is another.

You're dealing with Free Software. You have complete freedom to fork or modify things. If you want to make a Mono-free Ubuntu, it's a relatively simple change - although be careful of making the root SquashFS image too big to fit on a CD after swapping out packages. But, short version: if the desktop team feel that the best package for a given job is written with Python or Haskell or Scheme or C#, then that's the app they'll pick for the official releases.

ANY app, regardless of what it's written in, will disappear from the default install when one of the following happens
* A better app comes along, and can fit on the install CD without being too big
* A legal threat is received against the app or a component of the app, which cannot easily be worked around

That's not Mono-specific, it's the policy applied to all of Ubuntu. I'd like to see more frequent objective comparisons between packages, to determine what goes onto a CD (for example, Mono-based Beagle was replaced with the superior C-based Tracker - but I'd like to see Rhythmbox compared to its peers like Banshee, or Pidgin compared to its peers like Galaxium). Where the Mono-based app is simply technically inferior, it gets dumped.

If you strongly disagree with Mono-based apps on the default install, then your course is clear. Either fork your own install media, or help to improve the competing apps until they beat out the Mono apps, and win on unambiguous, un-arguable *technical* merit. Attempting to convince people using oft-discredited, region-specific, vague arguments from a student with too much time won't work in your favour. If you can provide evidence of a *credible* threat relating to Mono (which doesn't apply to things in a default Ubuntu install like NTFS support), then those arguments might hold water with the applicable core developers - but nobody will ban apps based on imaginary threats nobody has ever received

We dont need to fork anything, there are no imaginary threats as you like to call them atm, only real ones based on how you perceive them or don't, and thats the policy of division regarding forking that I"d rather avoid personally; I and Kilon are offering a mutually beneficial way to make everyone equal, not divided.

“There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an
implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by
Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell
is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to
Novell customers.”

cheers
nl

directhex

November 10th, 2008, 08:00 PM

We dont need to fork anything, there are no imaginary threats as you like to call them atm, only real ones based on how you perceive them or don't, and thats the policy of division regarding forking that I"d rather avoid personally; I and Kilon are offering a mutually beneficial way to make everyone equal, not divided.

As long as they have Internet access, and in the case of the liveCD have buckets of RAM for the RAMdisk installation. And some developers come forward to write the new glue code to do all this (are you volunteering?)

All users are equal, but some are more equal than others, apparently.

“There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an
implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by
Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell
is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to
Novell customers.”

Your uncredited quote comes from a 2006 interview by eWEEK of Bob Muglia, Microsofts senior vice president for server and tools. The full interview is here: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsofts-Muglia-Talks-Longhorn-Novell-and-Java/

Here is the FULL context of your quote:

But people are looking at Suns GPL move with Java and asking whether Microsoft might now make the .Net Framework available under an open-source license in addition to your Shared Source license. Any possibility of that?

First of all we do have substantive parts of the .Net Framework available through the open-source community and there are ongoing implementations of that. There is a substantive effort in open source to bring such an implementation of .Net to market, known as Mono and being driven by Novell, and one of the attributes of the agreement we made with Novell is that the intellectual property associated with that is available to Novell customers. But we certainly have no intention of releasing the source code to .Net to the community, but the community is free to go with Mono and enhance that and build solutions for customers.

Here's the subsequent question:

Is Microsoft willing to look at a similar patent deal with Sun around the .Net framework and Java so that developers could freely build on both platforms?

We already have a substantive intellectual property agreement with Sun, which we entered into a couple of years ago and I think .Net was a part of that, so that is in place already I think. So we made IP peace with Sun two years ago.

If you read that as specific substantive threats, then by all means. I don't find the tone threatening. Can you explain to me how, exactly, this relates to a specific danger in Ubuntu's shipping of Mono, which doesn't affect Ubuntu's shipping of things like NTFS write support? Can you explain which patents exactly are violated? Can you explain the specific business benefit to Microsoft Corp of exerting those undisclosed patents?

neighborlee

November 14th, 2008, 06:33 PM

Apparently I'm "just a local viper , spouting poison". According to some guy on the Internets, anyway. What more would you expect?

Everyone can learn to change for the better directHEX.

M$ can too, but along the way they will need some urging,,,

M$ is where this trumped technology came from in the first place and what mono is based on, including the patents ( which must be downloaded from novel, which hardly makes it GPL )

If the choice is between using software derived from a convicted monopolist, known linux hater and secret deal maker with the distro peddling Mono, and using something else entirely , which one do you think most users of a free operating system would/should opt in for ?

http://www.mail-archive.com/foundati.../msg02666.html

" The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language.
"

Yes we can!

cheers
nl

directhex

November 14th, 2008, 07:13 PM

Everyone can learn to change for the better directHEX.

M$ can too, but along the way they will need some urging,,,

M$ is where this trumped technology came from in the first place and what mono is based on, including the patents ( which must be downloaded from novel, which hardly makes it GPL )

If the choice is between using software derived from a convicted monopolist, known linux hater and secret deal maker with the distro peddling Mono, and using something else entirely , which one do you think most users of a free operating system would/should opt in for ?

http://www.mail-archive.com/foundati.../msg02666.html

" The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language.
"

Yes we can!

cheers
nl

Please don't copy-paste identical posts to multiple threads.

neighborlee

November 14th, 2008, 07:36 PM

Please don't copy-paste identical posts to multiple threads.

I felt it important to be put in multiple places,,and its not a identical post. I had no idea that was a crime.

cheers
nl

directhex

November 14th, 2008, 07:46 PM

I felt it important to be put in multiple places,,and

Re-read it. Ask yourself how relevant it is to both threads you posted it in. You wouldn't post your GNOME rant in an ASP.NET support thread or something like that would you? Because that's what's known as "spamming"

its not a identical post.

Ehm... by "copy pasted" i mean "you even copied the truncated URL, so one of them reads '/foundati.../msg02666.html'

I fail to see how that doesn't qualify

I had no idea that was a crime.

Standard forum etiquette on any web forum is that you post your replies to relevant posts, you don't pollute several threads with copy-pasted replies.

neighborlee

November 14th, 2008, 07:51 PM

Re-read it. Ask yourself how relevant it is to both threads you posted it in. You wouldn't post your GNOME rant in an ASP.NET support thread or something like that would you? Because that's what's known as "spamming"

Ehm... by "copy pasted" i mean "you even copied the truncated URL, so one of them reads '/foundati.../msg02666.html'

I fail to see how that doesn't qualify

Standard forum etiquette on any web forum is that you post your replies to relevant posts, you don't pollute several threads with copy-pasted replies.

Is that the best you have ?

Why dont you stick to the facts at hand, instead of attempting to attack me for what you call spamming ;)

yes you can! :)

cheers
nl

directhex

November 14th, 2008, 07:58 PM

Is that the best you have ?

Best I have on what? Your thread earlier today? I already gave a detailed reply. Elsewhere. I am not repeating myself for your benefit.

THAT is why you don't post the same post in multiple places, Lee.

Why dont you stick to the facts at hand, instead of attempting to attack me for what you call spamming ;)

I'm not "attempting to attack you". I really don't need to. Not to say that my observations aren't also facts. Ones which you opt to ignore. Like anything which doesn't go along with your asserted reality.

And you don't have any facts. Any request for facts rather than out-of-context misquotes gets ignored. Bravo for that, by the way.

dmitrijledkov

November 14th, 2008, 08:10 PM

I love Gnome-Do. It is amazing and I can't live without it. It is written in C# using mono. And I don't care because I know that C# is already well defined language, and mono can take the libraries into their own direction. Mono apps are not importing any microsoft binary blobs, nor they have to follow .net word by word. Look at ECMAscript every engine is a little different and has it's own quirks. The more the merrer.

neighborlee

November 14th, 2008, 10:45 PM

Best I have on what? Your thread earlier today? I already gave a detailed reply. Elsewhere. I am not repeating myself for your benefit.

THAT is why you don't post the same post in multiple places, Lee.

I'm not "attempting to attack you". I really don't need to. Not to say that my observations aren't also facts. Ones which you opt to ignore. Like anything which doesn't go along with your asserted reality.

And you don't have any facts. Any request for facts rather than out-of-context misquotes gets ignored. Bravo for that, by the way.

http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/11/11/novell-attacks-red-hat-with-linux-migration-offer/ <

There is one for you.

So now it becomes clear Novel's approach in all of this , like anyone didn't get it from the very beginning who cherrish FOSS, except of course those on the INside, whom have a stake in such things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030801158.html < Here is another one that discusses important things about the M$/novel deal that anyone interested in any of this owes to themselves to know about.

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/11/chickens-peckin.html < and here, straight from linuxtoday's Managing Editor.

cheers
nl

directhex

November 15th, 2008, 01:06 AM

http://www.thevarguy.com/2008/11/11/novell-attacks-red-hat-with-linux-migration-offer/ <

There is one for you.

How is that related to Mono, exactly? Changing the subject constantly is quite tiresome.

So now it becomes clear Novel's approach in all of this , like anyone didn't get it from the very beginning who cherrish FOSS, except of course those on the INside, whom have a stake in such things.

Again, not relevant to Mono, and again, a BUSINESS move. One which is fairly common, in one shape or another - e.g. supermarkets giving you discounts for using competing supermarkets' coupons. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is about.

People who are swayed by this, well, that's up to them. RHEL is the better distro, but it's never been about "best" when business is concerned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030801158.html < Here is another one that discusses important things about the M$/novel deal that anyone interested in any of this owes to themselves to know about.

Miguel doesn't like software patents. Does this surprise you?

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/11/chickens-peckin.html < and here, straight from linuxtoday's Managing Editor.

An opinion piece which can be summed up as "leave Red Hat alone!" - again, I fail to see what this has to do with Mono

neighborlee

November 15th, 2008, 01:27 AM

How is that related to Mono, exactly? Changing the subject constantly is quite tiresome.

Again, not relevant to Mono, and again, a BUSINESS move. One which is fairly common, in one shape or another - e.g. supermarkets giving you discounts for using competing supermarkets' coupons. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is about.

People who are swayed by this, well, that's up to them. RHEL is the better distro, but it's never been about "best" when business is concerned.

Miguel doesn't like software patents. Does this surprise you?

An opinion piece which can be summed up as "leave Red Hat alone!" - again, I fail to see what this has to do with Mono

I'm sorry if your becoming tired of this, maybe you should retire from the discussion.

Its about patterns, and in this case Novel, whom partnered with M$ for patent protection whom is now also behind Attacks on Red Hat With the Linux Migration Offer. It shows a pattern to those whom are concerned about FOSS, and I guess maybe to those whom aren't it might not.

Its about FOSS, not patent encumbered technology that threaten FOSS from companies that are convicted Monopolists and consider linux a 'cancer'.

' The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language. "

from here: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02666.html

cheers
nl

smartboyathome

November 15th, 2008, 01:40 AM

directhex

November 15th, 2008, 02:11 AM

I'm sorry if your becoming tired of this, maybe you should retire from the discussion.

What discussion? You act as if a single thing is actually being absorbed, when what you're actually doing is just spamming the same half-truths, misquotes, contextless quotes, and unrelated web links.

What

Discussion?

Because every time I attempt to gain anything from you other than the latest boycottnovell frontpage post, I'm met with stony silence.

Its about patterns, and in this case Novel, whom partnered with M$ for patent protection whom is now also behind Attacks on Red Hat With the Linux Migration Offer. It shows a pattern to those whom are concerned about FOSS, and I guess maybe to those whom aren't it might not.

Keep digging.

I've done more for F/OSS than you, Lee. So have guys like Miguel. Trying to paint a picture suggesting otherwise is frankly pathetic.

The Microsoft/Novell customer patent deal is smoke & mirrors on the part of both companies, protecting neither from each other, and sod it I've covered THIS before as well. Urgh.

Its about FOSS, not patent encumbered technology that threaten FOSS from companies that are convicted Monopolists and consider linux a 'cancer'.

Covered repeatedly. You're just ignoring it. Bored now. Rip off your Page Up/Down keys, remove your ability to double-click, remove any TCP/IP ability from your machine, then come back. All of those are covered by Microsoft patents.

Or does it not count unless someone else tells you it does?

' The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language. "

from here: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02666.html

Christ on a bike, you're already repeating the same contextless quote from four bloody posts up? Seriously?

See, this is why it's not a discussion. You don't have any actual answer to a single thing I type. Just the same (in this case EXACTLY THE SAME) copy-pasted talking points.

You want RMS quotes? Here are some:

"It's a good idea to make Free replacements for all non-Free software that users use. There might be [some problems with patents], but ANY software that's written is probably covered by patents. But on the other hand, NOT providing a Free implementation means a lot of users can't move to Free software" - Padova, 2007

"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." - Zagreb, 2006

"With Mono and DotGNU, we hope to provide good alternatives to components of .NET, ones that will respect your freedom, and your privacy. You will be able to use the facilities of Mono and DotGNU either with, or without, the Internet, and using servers of your choice." - FSF press release, 2001

"GNOME should certainly support .NET programs and C# programs, using DotGNU by preference since that is a GNU package; supporting Mono as an
alternative C# implementation would be ok too. I don't think there is any real dispute about this. A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward" - letter to The Register, 2002

Of course, posting these is a waste of my time, as you won't respond to them, the way you've avoided replying to any previous quote, link, or comment which disrupts your asserted reality. But someone else reading this thread might gain something from them.

neighborlee

November 15th, 2008, 02:11 AM

Neighborlee: what you're not getting is that it is used in many distros SUPPORTED BY THE GNU FOUNDATION. Some of these include gNewSense, and even part of GNOME (which IS supported by GNU). Are you saying that RMS is just throwing caution to the wind as well? Last time I checked, he actually was careful about stuff like this and the GPLv3 in fact came out to protect GPL'd software from being used like Tivo did.

Novell isn't the "big bad company" you make them out to be. They have supported Linux in more ways than one. Some examples are different portions of the Linux kernel in order to correct bugs on ie SUSE, as well as the open source ATI Raedon drivers. They didn't have to do these, they chose to, to contribute to the community. They are a business, though, and are trying to make money, so they are going to make deals with other businesses which puts their business in a more favorable position.

I just gave you a URL from RMS specifically stating he is against using mono , and just as per usual with mono apologists, you neglect to comprend this and its really odd, considering the information is right there before you.

To reiterate since you aren't either seeing it or refuse to:

' The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language. "

There is is in bold print, RMS saying avoid mono, but if you wish to try to avoid it and spin around other comments be my guest, but his comment remains.

cheers
nl

neighborlee

November 15th, 2008, 02:14 AM

What discussion? You act as if a single thing is actually being absorbed, when what you're actually doing is just spamming the same half-truths, misquotes, contextless quotes, and unrelated web links.

What

Discussion?

Because every time I attempt to gain anything from you other than the latest boycottnovell frontpage post, I'm met with stony silence.

Keep digging.

I've done more for F/OSS than you, Lee. So have guys like Miguel. Trying to paint a picture suggesting otherwise is frankly pathetic.

The Microsoft/Novell customer patent deal is smoke & mirrors on the part of both companies, protecting neither from each other, and sod it I've covered THIS before as well. Urgh.

Covered repeatedly. You're just ignoring it. Bored now. Rip off your Page Up/Down keys, remove your ability to double-click, remove any TCP/IP ability from your machine, then come back. All of those are covered by Microsoft patents.

Or does it not count unless someone else tells you it does?

Christ on a bike, you're already repeating the same contextless quote from four bloody posts up? Seriously?

See, this is why it's not a discussion. You don't have any actual answer to a single thing I type. Just the same (in this case EXACTLY THE SAME) copy-pasted talking points.

You want RMS quotes? Here are some:

"It's a good idea to make Free replacements for all non-Free software that users use. There might be [some problems with patents], but ANY software that's written is probably covered by patents. But on the other hand, NOT providing a Free implementation means a lot of users can't move to Free software" - Padova, 2007

"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." - Zagreb, 2006

"With Mono and DotGNU, we hope to provide good alternatives to components of .NET, ones that will respect your freedom, and your privacy. You will be able to use the facilities of Mono and DotGNU either with, or without, the Internet, and using servers of your choice." - FSF press release, 2001

"GNOME should certainly support .NET programs and C# programs, using DotGNU by preference since that is a GNU package; supporting Mono as an
alternative C# implementation would be ok too. I don't think there is any real dispute about this. A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward" - letter to The Register, 2002

Of course, posting these is a waste of my time, as you won't respond to them, the way you've avoided replying to any previous quote, link, or comment which disrupts your asserted reality. But someone else reading this thread might gain something from them.

all OLD quotes..you just cant resist can you ;)

and stop taking the lords name in vain, its very disrespectful, as if you didn't already know that..typical of mono supporters to break into demeaning diatribe when they aren't getting their way.

I think your first approach to leaving discussion was a great idea, since its clear you can't control your outbursts.

cheers
nl

smartboyathome

November 15th, 2008, 02:14 AM

I just gave you a URL from RMS specifically stating he is against using mono , and just as per usual with mono apologists, you neglect to comprend this and its really odd, considering the information is right there before you.

To reiterate since you aren't either seeing it or refuse to:

' The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language. "

There is is in bold print, RMS saying avoid mono, but if you wish to try to avoid it and spin around other comments be my guest, but his comment remains.

cheers
nl

Sorry, I didn't see who that was from. I should obviously the link. :neutral:

Anyway, RMS still has control over the GNU, so if he didn't want mono, he would have not allowed it in gNewSense, or otherwise said it wasn't an official GNU distro.

You didn't answer me when I talked about Novell, though, which seems to be your main argument against. Please respond to that.

neighborlee

November 15th, 2008, 02:17 AM

Sorry, I didn't see who that was from. I should obviously the link. :neutral:

Anyway, RMS still has control over the GNU, so if he didn't want mono, he would have not allowed it in gNewSense, or otherwise said it wasn't an official GNU distro.

You didn't answer me when I talked about Novell, though, which seems to be your main argument against. Please respond to that.

I dont really need to , if you can't tell me why one of the greatest supporters of OSS would be against that which you are condoning ?

cheers
nl

cardinals_fan

November 15th, 2008, 02:18 AM

Its about patterns, and in this case Novel, whom partnered with M$ for patent protection whom is now also behind Attacks on Red Hat With the Linux Migration Offer. It shows a pattern to those whom are concerned about FOSS, and I guess maybe to those whom aren't it might not.

Your sinister "Attacks on Red Hat" are called competition. Red Hat isn't a charity. They are a publicly traded software corporation, just like Novell, Microsoft, or Google. They are known for providing a rock-solid enterprise operating system and very good quality tech support to companies that can afford it. Novell is not quite as big of a player and doesn't have quite as solid of a reputation, particularly on the server front. So, they need to try to sell their product over an entrenched competitor, Red Hat. They have decided to offer what looks like a very good deal in the hope of luring new customers. This is a perfectly valid business strategy and has been employed by thousands of other companies.

EDIT: Before anyone says it, yes, Novell is a larger company than Red Hat. However, if you look at market share, SLES has significantly lower adoption than RHEL. Source: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1299270,00.html

directhex

November 15th, 2008, 02:34 AM

all OLD quotes..you just cant resist can you ;)

Calling you out? No. I'm waiting on some stuff from other people, which means I have plenty of time right now to try & clear up your disinformation. Or kill your credibility with facts. One or t'other.

and stop taking the lords name in vain, its very disrespectful, as if you didn't already know that..

Respect is a two-way street.

typical of mono supporters to break into demeaning diatribe when they aren't getting their way.

Of course. I'm a viper, remember? Some guy said so on IRC. He was probably some Mono supporter, being demeaning like that.

I think your first approach to leaving discussion was a great idea, since its clear you can't control your outbursts.

Oh, I can, believe me. I'm being very restrained, whilst crying on the inside. The way you would with a flat-earther who refuses to look at a map.

directhex

November 15th, 2008, 02:37 AM

I just gave you a URL from RMS specifically stating he is against using mono , and just as per usual with mono apologists, you neglect to comprend this and its really odd, considering the information is right there before you.

Four quotes in favour of Free implementations of all languages. RMS disagrees with using Mono to author new apps for Free OSes - largely as a result of being fed disinformation on topics he isn't fully versed in - but he's been a supporter of people using whichever language they like best for 20-30 years.

He hasn't changed.

To reiterate since you aren't either seeing it or refuse to:

' The more "cool stuff" depends on Mono, the closer we get to a
situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice.

If these programs are important enough to deserve the term "miss out on",
then I think they should be written in another language. "

One post, from the middle of a thread.

With neither him, nor you it seems, volunteering to rewrite the apps in question.

There is is in bold print, RMS saying avoid mono, but if you wish to try to avoid it and spin around other comments be my guest, but his comment remains.

Ah, the BAN TEH MONOZ party line. "I WILL IGNORE YOUR EVIDENCE UNTIL YOU REFUTE MY SECTION OF A QUOTE!"

Already covered. scroll up.

mrgnash

November 15th, 2008, 05:14 PM

I dont really need to , if you can't tell me why one of the greatest supporters of OSS would be against that which you are condoning ?

cheers
nl

And how, besides quoting him out of context, do you propose to demonstrate that Stallman is "against" Mono (specifically, it's inclusion in Linux distributions -- which, after all, is the ostensible topic of discussion)? As Smartboyathome, and others, have pointed out, Mono is included in gNewSense, a distro that aims at being in compliance with the standards promulgated by the GNU foundation. To my knowledge, and perhaps you can correct me on this, Stallman has not repudiated gNewSense for falling short of GNU standards. The evidence, therefore, seems very much weighted in favor of the conclusion that Stallman is not "against" Mono at all. Now, I fully expect you to ignore said evidence, as you have done repeatedly in this thread when it has been presented to you, but if you were to defy everyone's expectations and actually address this particular point, and substantiate at least one of your claims, then it would certainly demonstrate that you are at least prepared to enter into a considered debate, rather than simply parroting propaganda as you have done until now.

Secondly, -- and please don't think this obviates the need to provide a substantiation for the above -- the whole "Stallman is against it, therefore it's bad" argument is premised on a logical fallacy: namely the argument from authority. It's not enough to say that 'individual x' supports or opposes something. What is important, is whether they do so on the grounds of careful consideration of the evidence. If such and such a person has a sound argument, THEN, citing said argument in a debate is worthwhile. Mere name-dropping is not.

neighborlee

November 15th, 2008, 06:33 PM

And how, besides quoting him out of context, do you propose to demonstrate that Stallman is "against" Mono (specifically, it's inclusion in Linux distributions -- which, after all, is the ostensible topic of discussion)? As Smartboyathome, and others, have pointed out, Mono is included in gNewSense, a distro that aims at being in compliance with the standards promulgated by the GNU foundation. To my knowledge, and perhaps you can correct me on this, Stallman has not repudiated gNewSense for falling short of GNU standards. The evidence, therefore, seems very much weighted in favor of the conclusion that Stallman is not "against" Mono at all. Now, I fully expect you to ignore said evidence, as you have done repeatedly in this thread when it has been presented to you, but if you were to defy everyone's expectations and actually address this particular point, and substantiate at least one of your claims, then it would certainly demonstrate that you are at least prepared to enter into a considered debate, rather than simply parroting propaganda as you have done until now.

Secondly, -- and please don't think this obviates the need to provide a substantiation for the above -- the whole "Stallman is against it, therefore it's bad" argument is premised on a logical fallacy: namely the argument from authority. It's not enough to say that 'individual x' supports or opposes something. What is important, is whether they do so on the grounds of careful consideration of the evidence. If such and such a person has a sound argument, THEN, citing said argument in a debate is worthwhile. Mere name-dropping is not.

Is it propoganda that stallmans own words clearly show that mono should be avoided in clearly represented opinion, regardless of gnewsense, which is only one distro, and I might add a very insignficant one at that considering its #70 at distrowatch ? ;)

I dont decry your wishes to support the underdog ;)

On the basis of whether or not RMS's opinion was obtained via 'careful consideration' , I see no reason to doubt that it wasn't based on the fact of who he is in the community, that he is a foss adovocate, but of course you are free to verify said opinions if it truly annoys you so much ;)

Your ad hominem attack on me, colorfully trying to paint me into some obscure corner in which only parroting propaganda is the topic of day give me great glee, but you do this with no evidence, as simply inciting that I have name dropped is illogical given the name I dropped is one of authority in the linux realm.

Now, if your looking for a slightlhy more 'legal' view on this matter, this I would happily point you here:

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

Amoung other things there you see , 'Not limited to just novel as mono is', which I find very intereting considering the articles conclusions, don't you ? ;)

Happy reading, its rather interesting ;)

cheers
nl

directhex

November 15th, 2008, 07:53 PM

Is it propoganda that stallmans own words clearly show that mono should be avoided in clearly represented opinion, regardless of gnewsense, which is only one distro, and I might add a very insignficant one at that considering its #70 at distrowatch ? ;)

I dont decry your wishes to support the underdog ;)

The underdog with its logo splashed on gnu.org, with FSF sponsorship? Again, you're deliberately misrepresenting reality to better conform with your view.

You think RMS has nice things to say about a distro like Ubuntu filled with genuinely non-free things like firmwares, drivers, and so on?

On the basis of whether or not RMS's opinion was obtained via 'careful consideration' , I see no reason to doubt that it wasn't based on the fact of who he is in the community, that he is a foss adovocate, but of course you are free to verify said opinions if it truly annoys you so much ;)

RMS is busy, and as such, spends most of his time concentrating on the things that matter to him - which these days is high level licensing considerations more than anything else.

As a result, people looking to get soundbites out of him can simply manipulate his sources - e.g. mailing him and saying "hey Richie, 'everyone' says this software eats babies, isn't that right?".

If I was disrespectful enough to bother him with things that don't matter to him, I'd urge him to do his own research, always considering the source. Some sources are debunked as liars, e.g. boycottnovell. Unfortunately, those same sources are the very people bothering him as suggested in the previous paragraph.

Your ad hominem attack on me, colorfully trying to paint me into some obscure corner in which only parroting propaganda is the topic of day give me great glee, but you do this with no evidence, as simply inciting that I have name dropped is illogical given the name I dropped is one of authority in the linux realm.

GNU. Not Linux. Make sure you know the difference, as it's something that drives RMS up the wall.

Now, if your looking for a slightlhy more 'legal' view on this matter, this I would happily point you here:

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

Amoung other things there you see , 'Not limited to just novel as mono is', which I find very intereting considering the articles conclusions, don't you ? ;)

This is another favourite link or Roy's, but it fails to convey the whole truth - it's a very deliberate piece of truth cookie-cuttered out of the bigger picture.

Firstly, it's an article specifically about Moonlight - an out of date article, I might add.

Mono does not receive any special patent protection or coverage from Microsoft, in any shape or form, other than the patents received under the Ms-PL licensed sections of code (e.g. the Dynamic Runtime Library).

In the context, "not just limited to Novell as Mono is" covers *everything* in the Novell-customer-only patent deal - you could substitute in any word instead of Mono there and still derive the same half-truth. Try it now, try saying "not limited to Novell as GNOME is", or "not limited to Novell as KDE is", or "not limited to Novell as the Linux kernel is". Mono was mentioned in context by the MS employee being paraphrased, because it's the logical thing to use in that context, assuming you believe in things like patent grants.

Yes, it's insidious - software patents are - but the specific context of the (again, out of date) article and associated quote is that Moonlight has patent coverage for people who are not covered by the MS-Novell patent deal, i.e. anyone. Mono, GNOME, KDE, the kernel, etc, have no such "protection"

Now, when I say "out of date", i mean "no longer relevant", and here's why: firstly, portions of Silverlight are offered under a FSF-approved Free Software license (one which includes complete patent grants, before you kick off). Secondly, the rest has been shoved under Microsoft's second patent grant covenant, the Open Specification Promise - see MS-SLXV on http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx

There IS one portion of Moonlight which is still "protected", and that's the codecs. If you want media support in Moonlight, then you can compile against FFmpeg (which is Free Software included in Ubuntu Main, but is also considered a 'patent minefield'), or you can use a binary codec pack distributed via Novell. The Microsoft Media Pack as it's called, is non-Free, gratis software, which is fully licensed & covers all patents (including patents to non-Microsoft companies, for components such as MP3 playback).

The funny thing about boycottnovell & those who copypaste their party line, is that NOTHING would be sufficient - largely because of misdirected hate. The real cause for anger is the US Patent Office, which allows such a ridiculous system to exist - but the people who are targeted are those who are handing out source code and patent grants, within the confines of a stupid system that allows them to be sued by anyone looking to make a fast buck.

Since you're the font of all knowledge, answer this one: what would be "enough" for Mono to be "safe", in your eyes? And not just Mono, of course, but other .NET frameworks like the FSF-sponsored DotGNU Portable.NET (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/).

What's the goal?

What's the target?

The holy grail?

Do you have one?

cardinals_fan

November 16th, 2008, 12:09 AM

Is it propoganda that stallmans own words clearly show that mono should be avoided in clearly represented opinion, regardless of gnewsense, which is only one distro, and I might add a very insignficant one at that considering its #70 at distrowatch ? ;)
I'll provide some evidence for you:
Q1: I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the relationship between Mono and GNOME.

Richard Stallman: 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.
He never said that it should be avoided, just that it shouldn't be depended on. Same for the mailing list discussion in your link.

Gnewsense certainly is relevant to the discussion, because it is the distro officially sponsored by the FSF, RMS's organization. You can call it insignificant once you stop considering RMS's opinion significant, which you aren't doing (see below quote).

Your ad hominem attack on me, colorfully trying to paint me into some obscure corner in which only parroting propaganda is the topic of day give me great glee, but you do this with no evidence, as simply inciting that I have name dropped is illogical given the name I dropped is one of authority in the linux realm.

By the way, what window manager do you use?

directhex

November 16th, 2008, 01:23 AM

Kickass, i made boycottnovell front page

Thanks Lee, I really feel I've made my mark now

neighborlee

November 16th, 2008, 02:18 AM

[QUOTE=directhex;6185644]

The main problem is that all this is from a convicted monopolist ( as if thats not bad enough ? ) who views linux as a cancer ( dont remember ballmer comment ? ), and went into a patent encumbered contract with ONE COMPANY for undisclosed reasons, for which those wishing to use said software need to get it from. Novell must now direct Microsoft to refrain from granting covenants to Novell's users unless they will apply to everyone equally. Hang together with the Free Software community by changing your software patent stance from one of monopoly rights for Novell to one of support for legislation that will make it safe for all of us to create, distribute, and use software.

Now if thats isn't possible , then I pretty much figure I have the same view of M$ as Paul Allen does, which isn't favorable, and is the same viewpoint that now I have of this thread since its not important enough to be viewed in broad daylight on the main Ubuntu forums apparantly :) What exactly does Ubuntu have to hide anyway that they are afraid to leave it on the general forum ?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454 < that those that know far more than I about legal matters have clearly found it vapor speak is clear indication to me at least to avoid it on that basis as well. Are you so versed in law that you can refute this website ? If so please do so on a line by line basis.

If you have a different need then by all means use it, but you wont get anyone else buying into it that know about the entirety of M$'s historical attempts to bury linux and the FOSS it represents,in order to benefit their bottom line.

You of course are welcome to reply here, but I wont be coming back to read it, so all your colorful adjectives that you love descending into so much and for which leave you with a great deal less credibility, can be avoided :)

I wont comment here further unless this thread sees the light of day on the normal thread where most people will come into contact with it, as I dont like deals discussed and made in the night where few eyes are upon it.

cheers
nl

directhex

November 16th, 2008, 02:26 AM

If he's not coming back, anyone want me to point out the inaccuracies & falsehoods in his last post or not?

I'm not fussed either way

mrgnash

November 16th, 2008, 04:44 AM

If he's not coming back, anyone want me to point out the inaccuracies & falsehoods in his last post or not?

I'm not fussed either way

Not really. I refer you to a quote by Thomas Jefferson, which pretty much covers the majority of FUD drawn from the 'boycottnovel" well, including the only slightly-modified variety being parroted by Lee:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...

Rather than make any attempt to form cogent arguments which could form part of a rational dialog about software patent reform and whatnot, they prefer to decry the "ad hominem" attacks leveled at them by those nasty Mono/M$-loving (since the two are synonymous, after all!) "vipers". Even worse, they immediately subvert any attempt at establishing said dialog by claiming that anyone who presents an opinion which is in any way contrary to their own, must be somehow "in on it." Note how easily that even Ubuntu becomes part of the ever-widening web of conspirators in the above post. It's a tactic that anyone who has examined other conspiracy theories, such as those that fuel the 9/11 "truth" movement, will be nauseatingly familiar with.

I might even go so far as to predict that one day, even Stallman will be vilified as a Microsoft shill on the boycottnovel front page. At this point, such condemnation is more of a badge of honor than anything; so, congratulations directhex ;)