Propose your solution
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
exosyst
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:02
|
|
|
|
OK, so it affects two apps at the moment but Mono isn't deprecated so what happens when it's three, four or more applications that need to be removed because of their Mono dependency? F-Spot does a lot more than gThumb btw
|
|
Veejay
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:07
|
|
|
|
Sticky Notes is old and almost deprecated and doesn't even come close to Tomboy in terms of features. As for comparing f-spot and gthumb, well, that's just ludicrous. That's basically like comparing Picasa and ACDSee to use a Windows metaphor.
|
|
Ubuwu
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:18
|
|
|
|
Tomboy is definitely a nice program, but I don't think it is needed in the default install. If other people do feel it is needed, zim provides pretty much the same functionality.
|
|
exosyst
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 18:22
|
|
|
|
Tomboy is part of the default Gnome setup though. I agree Zim does provide the functions of Tomboy and IMO looks better and is easy to use but that's something to propose to the Gnome team perhaps? It's also not really a case against Mono.
|
|
Loffe
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 19:25
|
|
|
There are some hatred against the Mono project because of its Microsoft roots. I've lately heard people complaining just because the relationship with "that big evil company".
I use Ubuntu based on that "it just works", even if I lose a little of my freedom (proprietary drivers). And there is a LARGE userbase out there that wants the best OS and don't need total freedom over all components.
|
|
|
|
f-spot is so much better than gthumb. so what if it is mono, its a great, useful, fun app
|
|
|
|
I use tomboy, and I find it easier than Zim. Zim just feels too much like coding to me, while tomboy doesn't.
|
|
|
To summarise some different people's views gathered:
1) There is an ethical issue in that some people feel that Ubuntu should be promoting completely free and open source programming languages over closed source proprietary languages.
2) Some people feel that by including .NET and Mono by default encourages usage of that language rather then a free-er one in the Ubuntu default desktop which is more stable.
3) There are people who take the view that because Mono will always be a step behind Microsoft's implementation that it will always be not as good (like WINE) and so by including "not as good" in the default desktop cheapens Ubuntu and will ruin its reputation.
|
|
|
Obviously, there is concern about promoting non-free technologies and programming languages, in addition to promoting unresolved licensing problems.
However, there is also concern about creating the best system possible with the best technology available and that means NO MONO. Get over it. Even it's components won't ever catch up to Java and C++.
I'm not saying that it and programs that depend on Mono should not be available in multiverse. They just need to be far out of the way of the default install and out of comfortable reach from novice users.
|
|
filipf
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:35
|
|
|
I must say I disagree. C# is an open language and Mono is open source. The .NET platform is great for quickly developing applications, and supports many languages (c#, vb.net, python, rubby, java, etc.)
I would argue that Ubuntu should strengthen its relationship with Mono rather than removing it.
P.S. Wait till Silverlight 2 come out. You'll see how cool technology .NET is. I can already see all the desktop widgets being made with Moonlight.
|
|
hackel
wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 05:15
|
|
|
Let's all look again at the original idea. The biggest problems with mono are not philosophical, they are practical: First, the mono runtime takes up a huge amount of space on the live/install CD and is only used to run two applications! Second, the mono runtime takes up a large amount of memory--too much, for someone trying to run a Live CD off a ramdisk with limited free RAM. And finally, simply, neither of these applications make sense running off a Live CD. F-Spot creates a photo library--where are you going to store it, on your ramdisk? USB key? Unlikely. Tomboy is for taking notes that you want to remember later. This has no use on a LiveCD which doesn't store anything to a physical disk and so is erased each time you boot. You would want to use Online tools for this purpose so that you can easily access them again.
I don't believe the original poster was trying to disparage Mono, F-Spot, or Tomboy. I use both of these applications regularly and like them very much. However, I agree that at this time it does not make sense to include Mono on the CD. We are ONLY talking about the CD here, not Ubuntu itself! I would never want these applications removed from Ubuntu because I rely on them. Let's just take them off the live CD.
|
|
|
|
It's seriously silly to have Perl, Python, Mono and whatnot ALL installed and used on desktops. Just focus on one, you save more space and it is better manageable.
|
|
oz123
wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 17:30
|
|
|
I really tend to agree with the argument aginst mono. I probably have nothing to add, but here are the main argument untill now:
1. Mono occupies alot of free space.
2. Mono consumes a lot of memory.
3. Mono is suspected to be a 'trojan horse' to linux in the sense that its usage is free but C# is coming from Microsoft.
4. Why Mono when we have python pearl and Java RTE's, which are all 100% FREE ?
I also think that mono on ubuntu by default is redundant, regardles to what the GNOME developers think.
(P.S We already agreed to bite our tounges for propriety drivers, because they really make life A LOT MORE EASIER. That not the case with mono, no matter how 'cool' f-spot and tomboy are.
Plus, I must tell that I install Ubuntu for a lot of my friends, and I never install MONO apps for them on old PC's because they slow things down.)
|
|
|
Make it optional like WINE.
You don't see distros including winapi apps to be executed by WINE for default.
It doesn't make sense to see that happening with MONO...
|
|
sedra
wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 11:33
|
|
|
|
Mono use patented M$ technologies while it's ok for Novell it could be a trojan horse for other distributors who dont pay the tax for Microsoft please remove all mono based applications
|
|
cikic
wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 22:50
|
|
|
I do not like languages they need a VM. Yes is nice to be platform independent but you have always an overhead and it is hard to access your system features.
But I can see 2 main problems:
1) c/c++ is too difficult to learn an make quick apps (especially beside java/.net)
2) M$ has presented its singularity OS based on C# ( http://www.codeplex.com/singularity ) so the whole OS is going to "simpler" languages (and I think the VM overhead is not existing anymore since its in the kernel).
So in my eye its not the qestion removing mono or not. The Question is, is there one fast and easy language with all the power of gcc/++. You should be able to write kernel modules with this language, so yes maybe the kernel should be ported (to D, is D easy like .net?) some day.
|
|
quantux
wrote on the 13 Mar 08 at 20:20
|
|
|
Personally, I don't see the performance problem with f-spot and tomboy. I use both extensively and haven't seen any slowness. I also haven't checked on mem usage for each while running. I have checked overall mem usage and find that Ubuntu uses around half the memory that vista does. As for Mono, I'm not interested in using proprietary technologies for my own projects, but I'm not against running apps that do. Just like I'm not against using flash, nvidia and atheros drivers. Open solutions would be best, and are on their way (gnash, nv, and ath5k).
I know that when the MS hammer falls and mono is killed, any apps using it will be ported right away, or other apps will take their place. Thats how free software works, kind of like evolution, the best apps continue to survive, not just whatever the big companies choose to release.
As for the live CD, running it without mono or other dodgy software would result in a poor oobe and would discourage new users from installing. Linux is about being the best OS it can be, and right now, that includes mono (at least until the java mess gets straightened out) and proprietary drivers.
|
|
vexorian
wrote on the 16 Mar 08 at 02:19
|
|
|
"and right now, that includes mono (at least until the java mess gets straightened out) and proprietary drivers. "
No, it doesn't.
|
|
HDave
wrote on the 21 Mar 08 at 16:21
|
|
|
|
The legal arguments are the only valid arguments for eliminating mono. Otherwise it is a valid and good development platform and should be included by default.
|
|
filipf
wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 12:55
|
|
|
Copied from my comment to idea 6088:
Since Ubuntu strives to become a user-friendly desktop Linux, I don't see the point why we should deprive our users of excellent software such as Beagle, F-Spot, Gnome DO, Banshee, Tomboy or Giver (just to name a few).
Apps written in mono are easier to maintain, quicker to develop, and offer much better long-term perspectives. In short - Mono is here to stay.
As far as performance and memory consumption are concerned, the Mono version that ships with Ubuntu is very very old. New versions do way better on speed and memory.
Java? Well, the JVM is okay and offers many benefits of the CLR. But with Mono one can program in any language (be it C#/Java/Python/VB.NET/C++/Ruby/Nemerle/Boo etc) which is more programmer friendly. The native bindings are also much easier to achieve than in Java, so Mono-based apps integrate with Linux desktop much better.
|
|
Cypher
wrote on the 15 Apr 08 at 09:54
|
|
|
|
You really don't get the legal threat here, do you ?
|
|
|
This idea is about the LiveCD *and* default installation. While it doesn't make sense to have a photo manager or note application on a live CD, they need to be installed by default.
Also, Mono likely isn't going away anytime soon. Chances are more applications will be built on it in the future and removing it now (and using the space for other applications) may bite us in the end.
|
|
|
Just what legal threat are you guys talking about? The NET CLI is a ECMA standard, and Mono is a free implementation. They did not steal code from MS, they just wrote an implementation of a *standard*.
Sure, being paranoid about MS might not always be wrong, but this is really going the wrong direction. NET is a nice platform, and therefore should be included.
The "legal threat" of Java is just about equally nil.
|
|
filipf
wrote on the 23 Apr 08 at 04:26
|
|
|
I'm personally sick of all this *bs* legal threats. What's next? Remove Linux kernel because Microsoft says it infringes patents?
Mono in an independent implementation of an ECMA standard. Get over it, ppl.
|
|
filipf
wrote on the 14 May 08 at 05:45
|
|
|
Well, M$ is saying that the Linux kernel is violating its patents. Should we remove it too?
Cases like these must first be proven. And Mono is merely implementing a public standard.
|
|
steve196
wrote on the 14 May 08 at 09:36
|
|
|
|
+1, not for silly ideological arguments or tinfoil-hatting paranoia, but for removing unnecessary bloat from the live cd (which is very bloat-sensitive, because it doesn't use swapspace) and the almost mandatory ubuntu-desktop package.
|
|
|
filipf wrote:
"Well, M$ is saying that the Linux kernel is violating its patents. Should we remove it too?
Cases like these must first be proven. And Mono is merely implementing a public standard. "
Oh-ho. Do you know what a standard is or why one is created?
When multiple vendors of the same technology create chaos by implementing it differently so the consumers or developers face problems using it, a standard comes into existence to give them some strong foundation so they can work together in harmony. You need to stop throwing about the weight of the word "standard" without understanding its meaning. Where did .NET come from? By your definition of a standard all of the FOSS community should start accepting OOXML because it is now an ISO "standard" when it clearly is the creation of a single company for its own growth. The more MS garbage you use the greater the MS developer platform becomes and hence the MS user base. You're just feeding the giant with your own flesh.
.NET came from MS and it is known to have MS-owned patents. Novell entered into a deal with MS to be on the "safe" side (whatever that is). You are basically using patented "standards-compliant" software and hoping Microsoft does not break its "promise" because the day it does, you'll be the one in trouble because you'll then have to pay Microsoft tax to use any of the Nomo applications you've been using all this while.
Stop being an MS Puppet. A "promise" is not a legal statement. It's just being taken in good faith (which offers you no legal protection). Would you like to pay Microsoft tax because Microsoft patented the mouse click? Think again. Microsoft is only trying to acquire higher market share by using the patent bait. You're helping it.
If you like Tomboy and F-Spot so much, barrage the developers with questions and suggestions to move to Vala which shares a lot of its syntax with C# and compiles to native code, which I'm sure will appeal to a lot of you developers and users.
Nomo is a bloated curse, and before you ask me why I call it "Nomo" read up. I vote for "No Nomo by default in Ubuntu".
|
|
|
And for all you folks getting confused between patents and standards, standardized software is not necessarily free of patents. .NET is an ECMA "standard" but has a lot of patents owned by Microsoft. All of the .NET implementers then have to enter into an agreement with Microsoft to license the use of those patents (so that they don't infringe upon them).
MS is only "promising" that it won't sue. What stops it from breaking that promise? Nothing. Beware.
Novell is just one such puppet, and ECMA is known to have been a good friend of MS (as can be seen from the OOXML fast-forwarding fiasco elsenet).
|
|
|
mmcmonster wrote:
"This idea is about the LiveCD *and* default installation. While it doesn't make sense to have a photo manager or note application on a live CD, they need to be installed by default.
Also, Mono likely isn't going away anytime soon. Chances are more applications will be built on it in the future and removing it now (and using the space for other applications) may bite us in the end. "
Removing it *now* will *not* bite us in the end. A problem detected early is a boon. Later on there may be thousands of applications using Mono and any patent infringement problems *will* really bite us bad because we'll be left nowhere and we'll have to reimplement *all* of that software or live with proprietary terms and conditions. You people should search for the "Halloween documents" on Google and read about Microsoft's policy with respect to free and open source software. Microsoft views open source as a threat (rightly so) and is trying to spread FUD against it about various issues including patent infringements and performance/value benchmark comparisons.
WTFU. ;-)
|
|
Auzy
wrote on the 5 Jun 08 at 01:21
|
|
|
By the way, before you go off your nuts about Microsoft being evil and us needing to make agreements with them. Remember, we also need to make agreements with Linus to use the linux trademark too in our products.
I don't see how it is bad for customers to speak to microsoft at least, its no worse then having to get authorisation to use the linux trademark really.
I agree that we should try to include non-mono applications by default, but your reasoning yesudeep about puppets and all that seems a bit silly to me (and yes, we all may have a different opinion), like I said when you also consider that the OS we are supporting is trademarked too.
|
|
yesudeep
wrote on the 12 Jun 08 at 03:11
|
|
|
@Auzy.
I'd agree that to use the LINUX trademark you need authorization. However, what I disagree about is the openness of technologies propagated by Microsoft. If you haven't been living under a rock for the past half-decade or so, you might have already come across the halloween documents and read the recent appeals sent to ISO by Denmark, India, South Africa, and Brazil. Threats, bribes, stuffing, spreading FUD, etc. are common practices employed by MS where I live.
Additionally, nowhere have I said that Microsoft is evil, so I'd appreciate if words weren't put into my mouth. While you may find my Mono argument silly, the reasons I've stated are sufficient for me to stay away from Mono. And I'm not touching it until Microsoft has given patent license grants to the free and open source community. A "promise" is insufficient for me as a developer.
Also spreading FUD about distributions other than those that have entered into an agreement with Microsoft is annoying in the least.
Cheers.
|
|
eropple
wrote on the 14 Jun 08 at 17:12
|
|
|
>> A "promise" is insufficient for me as a developer.
You seem to be ignorant as to how the legal system works. That "promise" is what amounts to a solid defense against any lawsuits, patent threats, etc. from Microsoft. The legal term is "estoppel"; I suggest you look it up. Specifically, in the American law system, it's considered "equitable estoppel." Once Microsoft says "we won't sue," they are estopped from suing (if they do, they'd be tossed out on their ear so fast as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
As much as certain members of the open-source community would like to demonize Microsoft, on this one at least they are genuine--by all apparent intent so far, and forced to remain so legally if they had a change of heart.
(Disclosure: I'm a GSoC developer for Mono. The above pointer to the practice of estoppel, however, was pointed to me by a lawyer friend of mine whose judgement I trust unblinkingly.)
|
|
kiryl
wrote on the 10 Aug 08 at 12:31
|
|
|
|
Please, remove MONO from default distribution!
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure about this. Personally I wouldn't remove Mono, but it takes up space which could be used for better things... +0
|
|
ketilwaa
wrote on the 12 Aug 08 at 19:36
|
|
|
|
Thumbs down, all the *#%&(* typing "M$" put me over the edge. Just how old are you?
|
|
|
AFA your estoppel comment, we're all laughing here, as look at this wording:
" Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may be estopped from collecting the debt if the creditor changes its position later. It would be unfair to allow the creditor to change their mind in light of the unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. "
DO you see the word 'may' in there; look it up in the dictionary.
M$ on many occasions has said Linux is threat to their business model ( of course it is ), and has threatened Redhat and gone into a pact with Novel , whereby all those whom want to use Mono must agree to download same from them,- and no one sees this as a threat to OSS ? Remember the OOXML problem ?
Either people have very short memories, dont know about such things or in other cases are M$ moles. ( its a known fact M$ plants people to spread fud and misinformation ). I wish this were not the case, but as we ALL KNOW, M$ is a convicted monopolist, and I see nothing in the activities to suggest they have turned over a new leaf.
Trust Mono, and trust that OSS will be forever changed, and Im not alone in this concern, as if you wish come to #lemmings on irc.freenode.net and talk to others that share this concern. Go to : http://boycottnovell.com/ < and read up a bit and educate yourself. I think part of the problem is people either forget, or dont know about these scandalous things M$ does to protect its market share and shareholders. You can't trust the scropion not to bite just because it says it wont; sometimes it does, just because thats its nature, and atm M$ is showing zero signs it can change ( or wants to ) its nature.
I'd be more than happy to use Mono , if it truly came from a entity that was trustworthy, and had ZERO past or current intent ( and I do mean zero ) to harm OSS ( or considered them a threat/cancer [remember ballmer comment about suing Redhat ??] ), but we all know that is not the case. I therefore , atm anyway choose to use a operating system, that has chose to 'not' include Mono in default install, and thankfully that would be Fedora and I can't praise their efforts enough, because I now feel safe that Im using a distro from a company that looks out for us.
I vote yes, and if they did it would definitely cause me to rethink avoiding ubuntu.
cheers
nl
|
|
trilliji
wrote on the 13 Sep 08 at 18:43
|
|
|
I'd like to see Mono stay out of gnome. I simply don't trust the dependency on .net. At very least mono stuff should be put into restricted where you can control if you use it or not. In my mind this is much worse than proprietary drivers! Gnome is the Gnu Object Model Environment, not Microsoft. There is nothing that prevents mono adherents from the creation of of Mubuntu distribution.
I'm not going to use mono applications myself. If this is the direction of gnome than I'll be off for xfce most likely if this dependency persists.
|
|
borsook
wrote on the 13 Sep 08 at 19:04
|
|
|
|
How much space on the cd would be actually saved by doing this?
|
|
|
The true question is : Why we, the open source community, haven't produced anew standard language easier than C/C++ or Python like Java or moreover .NET are ? Why we always seems running behind the train whereas we can lead the innovations ?
The C language was a great stride when it was created. What we need now is a true alternative to .NET and Java led by the open source community. Why not a compiled language with the same comfort than those ones ? I'd like to easily grab some GTK or QT components, plug them on pre-made modules and build easily an application as fast as a C++ made one.
I'm not able to do such a thing but I know some people are. We cannot stay just followers.
|
|
Cypher
wrote on the 7 Oct 08 at 13:53
|
|
|
|
@PomCompot: I guess you're getting confused, we're not talking about a language, which C# is, but about a Framework, which .NET is. Sure, C# is a great language, easy and so... but that's not the point.
|
|
|
F-Spot can be replaced by gqview, but somebody need to pickup development on gqview (I've been using it for years and like it).
Gnome-Do is a great software, I feel pity for it. Anyway, I'm using Launchy as a replacement, is there any potential problem with it?
As for mono, if you don't value your freedom, you'll lose it.
|
|
|
gThumb and TakeNote http://rasm.ods.org/takenote/ are great
gThumb 2.11 will be ready for GIO and has upload (to Flickr) functionality
we can save a lot of space on the CD by choosing them instead of F-Spot/Tomboy
|
|
|
+1 MONO NO
We want to adopt technologies by technical merit not by marketing pressure or obsesive and pointless imitation.
|
|
|
|
Actually Roybatty. On that account, you should vote +1. Because Mono code is actually VERY readable and nice..
|
|
|
|
Sorry, you should vote -1. Coding with Mono is actually a pleasure.
|
|
|
Avoid the Microsoft footprint altogether.
|
|
|
|
GNU/Linux needs to create it's own framework. I didn't leave Windows to come back to it again in Linux.
|
|
mybunche
wrote on the 29 Nov 08 at 00:46
|
|
|
I recently changed my opinion of mono. For the long term future of Linux following Microsoft one step behind is not the way to increase Linux market share. It's not the way to do it. Sure it's good for programmers for now, but Microsoft will always be in command. That being said there one app I really like which uses mono and that is Tomboy. It is very useful to me. I wish it was without mono. So mono is here, we have to deal it, maybe Linux should have a long term plan to not use it and have another tool for developers.
|
|
fevans
wrote on the 29 Nov 08 at 03:03
|
|
|
|
Mono just works. I don't want microsoft telling me I have to use .NET, and I don't want anyone else telling me I can't. Keep Mono.
|
|
|
|
Then install it by yourself. We don't need mono by default.
|
|
|
Or you could just uninstall it 11th plague.. Because its included at the moment..
I disagree with this idea (as mentioned). Because at the moment, we are doing barely anything to compete against mono and other OS's
|
|
jhuni
wrote on the 11 Feb 09 at 08:31
|
|
|
I agree we should remove Mono by default so as to leave more room for applications in the default installation. I think most of the default applications should be the highest quality and very-speedy c programs.
I hope that parrot can be our alternative in the free software world to Java/.NET although parrot needs a lot of work.
PARROT:
http://www.parrot.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot_virtual_machine
|
|
|
Why is it that we keep making sacrifices to continue using a Media format that has been considered obsolete for years now..
The ubuntu community must be the only community on the planet who would rather strip features then upgrade to DVD's.
Why are you all acting as though the standard harddisk size is 8GB? Even 512GB SSD drives will be released this year.
Its gotten to the point that people in the community care more about their installation size, then they do about convenience. Mono wont slow down your system if you aren't using it!
|
|
|
|
Also, most developers don't care about how fast the code runs. What they care about is how easy it is to write/maintain, and C# is beautiful code.
|
|
cl333r
wrote on the 12 Feb 09 at 14:08
|
|
|
"Also, most developers don't care about how fast the code runs." - based on what (credible) statistics are you claiming that? I'm a server and desktop software developer and I do care about speed and my clients also do.
Mono is a bad implementation of Java. Java has been GPLed by its creator (Sun Microsystems).
Microsoft otoh threatens Linux using companies to sue them for using their IP which is also found in C# and Mono - and Canonical still chooses Mono (over Java which is much more mature and provides a full stack for Linux developers including the top awards winning NetBeans IDE).
|
|
|
Mono to fuel tomboy and f-spot?? really we need it when out there is Zim and GThumb?
No thanks, install Java as default and not Mono, because OpenOffice needs Java, Firefox sometimes needs Java and out there there a world of Java and not a world of .NET
.NET is a good alternative to install after the first installation of Ubuntu but not as a dependency.
Mono is a wonderful framework but I don't think it's right to package as a strictly dependence or as a default Ubuntu installation.
Let user's choose after Ubuntu installation.
|
|
|
cl333r. Depends on the project..
1) Languages designed for speed such as C also suffer many more security vulnerabilities.
2) Languages like C take a lot more code to perform basic tasks. Therefore, their programs are FAR behind the competition.
For some basic applications such as uTorrent where needs are minimal, C makes perfect sense. Extendible applications often work a lot better by using a high level language though.. This is why programs like beagle are so easy to code for. Yes I am aware that a lot of software development houses often have low standards these days (and forget all about extendibility to maintain the contract).
Sorry, but I've had this discussion in forums before. Many developers would rather very easily maintained and extended code, then slightly faster speeds. If you look at the firefox/songbird code for instance, its incredibly painful.
Finally, wrong about the lawsuit rubbish... Novell and Microsoft have a patent sharing agreement, so they can LEGALLY develop mono. Its just idiots like Boycott Novell who will tell you there is. There is no reason you can't include mono and Java..
I don't see any good reason for not including Mono. It works well, and developers like it. I understand that linux developers feel they should rubbish anything which is based on Microsoft technologies, but that doesn't make it bad.
As Luca said though, it would be good if we could customise the packages installed during installation!
|
|
|
1) c# and mono are quality software
2) some mono based app are great (gnome-do, at least)
3) some part of mono are patented (ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms, many others could come up in the future)
4) mono is an implementation of .NET, so .NET will always 1 or 2 step ahead
5) microsoft is hostile (only foolish people don't see that)
CONCLUSIONS:
Mono should be removed from default setup, and maintained in universe or even multiverse
|
|
|
|
F-spot can't even animate gifs: just take it out.
|
|
|
@Lorem: Linux is just as hostile. Lets be honest, you can't go to a single forum without every clueless linux idiot shouting "vista sucks", despite them never given it a chance.
I have spoken to PLENTY of Microsoft reps when I worked at an Apple reseller, and sorry to alarm you, they were all great guys. Even about the education version of office, they are very complacent about that.
You are correct about being 1 step behind though, however. That's a problem, however, its worth noting that C# is still a good language, and there still is no good replacement. Java is alright, but I still feel C# is ahead in many areas (at least last I checked)
|
|
wh0rd
wrote on the 27 May 09 at 19:30
|
|
|
|
The worst applications are probably Mono based. I've always used these applications and promoted them initially. From Banshee to F-Spot and even Tomboy. After using them I've come to the conclusion that they perform very poorly in comparison to other applications which are light weight. I think this is a very good idea. It would be great for the default installation of Ubuntu to remove some of this clutter.
|
|
|
AndrewLuecke, some Linux users are elitist and abrasive and verbally hostile to newcomers. When Lorem says Microsoft is hostile, he means something entirely different: Microsoft is a dangerous foe, and it would like nothing more than to destroy FOSS.
To preface my comments here, I want to make something clear: I am not the kind of person who outright hates Microsoft or anything not FOSS, refuses to support Microsoft, or wants to see Microsoft completely and utterly destroyed. I dual-boot with Windows XP Pro, and everyone else in my family uses Windows XP or Windows Vista. I own an Xbox 360 and it's the only console I play on a regular basis. I run nVidia's proprietary drivers, and I use WINE to run proprietary Windows software and games when I don't feel like (or can avoid) rebooting into XP. On top of all this, I've even been a Microsoft shareholder for about a decade...
...but I'm still wary of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" philosophy and its long history of shady practices, and I believe that incorporating a Mono dependency into Gnome and Ubuntu is a horrible, horrible mistake. Here's why:
At the kernel level, we have our bases covered:
Microsoft may CLAIM that the Linux kernel infringes upon numerous patents (over 200, so they say), but these claims are almost certainly nothing more than baseless FUD. The Linux kernel is a mature product, and it's the result of years upon years of work by a great number of programmers. In other words, the estimated cost to redevelop Linux is already so astronomical and prohibitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Estimated_cost_to_redevelop) that if Microsoft actually thought it could ever destroy Linux by filing patent lawsuits, it would PROBABLY do so immediately. Then again, it's possible that Microsoft does not yet feel sufficiently threatened by Linux to pull out its one-time-shot patent lawsuit trump card, and it's content to do "business as usual" until Linux gains more than a certain percent of marketshare. That way, Microsoft can enjoy its dominance today, idly allowing Linux coders to invest more and more time and money into the kernel, knowing it can hit the reboot button on Linux if it ever becomes too much of a threat. All things considered (AFAIK), the fact that Microsoft has not filed any such lawsuits against Linux developers, users, distributions, etc. indicates one of four things:
1.) Linux does not actually infringe upon many (if any) of Microsoft's patents.
2.) Linux does infringe upon some patents, but it would not be cost-prohibitive for Linux developers to quickly recode these sections and for the Linux world to recover.
3.) Perhaps one of the above two situations are true, but Microsoft is hoping that future Linux code will violate additional patents and be more difficult to rewrite than current 2.6.30 code.
4.) In the worst case scenario, Linux might infringe upon patents in ways that would be time-consuming or costly to fix, but Microsoft is waiting to sue until it actually needs to, thereby holding a trump card up its sleeve that will buy a few extra years of future market dominance while Linux regroups.
In any case, at the moment, Microsoft benefits far more from spreading FUD about unspecified patents than it would from actually filing lawsuits. Personally, I believe #1, 2, or 3 is the case in reality. I doubt Microsoft will EVER file lawsuits over supposedly patent-emcumbered Linux kernel code, and that if it ever does, the Linux kernel will quickly recover. I do not believe there's really anything to fear by depending on the Linux kernel...but even if I'm wrong, the BSD kernels are still under active development. They provide an easy fallback for the FOSS world in general, and the existence of Debian/kFreeBSD proves that even the popular desktop distributions have a fallback.
(continued)
|
|
|
While we have our bases covered at the kernel level, Mono and .NET are a completely different ballgame:
Whereas the Linux kernel can be developed entirely independently from Microsoft, Mono development MUST follow .NET standards for compatibility. Because of this, the likelihood of Mono actually infringing upon Microsoft patents is astronomically higher than the likelihood of the Linux kernel doing the same, and it's also quite likely that Mono cannot be recoded without using patented functionality. As others have said, the ECMA standard does not mean .NET functionality is not patented. ECMA standard or not, Microsoft is free to lace those standards with functionality that implementations will *have* to use patent-encumbered code to replicate. Because Mono development must follow Microsoft's lead to remain compatible, it cannot avoid stepping on patent land-mines, unlike the Linux kernel. Assuming Mono infringes upon Microsoft patents - which might even be unavoidable - what happens when Microsoft goes back on its "promise" not to sue? There's no guarantee we can rely on estoppel to save us, because judgment in such cases is still subjective. Similarly, as the poster above me noted by linking to this article (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/), the "reasonable," royalty-free patent license Mono thinks it can get from Microsoft is most likely nothing more than a myth. If so, the implications are telling: Why would Microsoft create such a myth of free and easy "down the road" patent licensing, unless it's trying to lull FOSS desktop developers into a false sense of security as they become more and more dependent upon Mono?
At the moment, it's no big deal to incorporate tomboy and f-spot into Ubuntu, if that's really where it stops. After all, if Microsoft decided to sue over its .NET-related patents, Ubuntu could simply switch to gThumb and zim. However, as some mentioned, f-spot and tomboy are superior software packages. That poses a slight problem, but it wouldn't take too long to recode fully-suitable replacements for just two Mono-dependent desktop applications. The real problem is that the Mono dependency is unlikely to stop at just two applications. What if Ubuntu changes its default music library player from Rhythmbox to Banshee (which is coded for Mono)? I think there's talk of this at the moment, since development of Rhythmbox is at a bit of a standstill. What if we wait for Banshee, f-spot, and tomboy to become so much better than their alternatives that there's no comparison, and recoding something similar would take years? What if we slowly wait for more and more Mono applications to creep into the Gnome desktop environment and become the primary and most heavily-developed apps? Where is the line in the sand? Hopefully KDE, Xfce, LXDE, etc. alternatives will remain Mono-free, but what if we cavalier attitudes to prevail so strongly that they don't? Once the popular desktop environments become so dependent upon Mono for basic desktop functionality that recoding replacements would take years, and the Linux desktop finally starts taking significant marketshare away from Microsoft...THAT's when Microsoft is likely to strike...and unlike the situation with the Linux kernel (and the BSD's), we may not have any fallback options we can seamlessly switch over to.
If and when that day comes, not only the Linux desktop but the entire FOSS desktop could be TOTALLY SCREWED. Such a move by Microsoft could send the FOSS desktop right back to the year that our desktop environments became strongly dependent on Mono. Will that "past year" be 2009? 2010? 2011? Whatever - in any case, if we become dependent on Mono soon and Microsoft strikes far into the future (say, 2017), our non-Mono software of today will be ancient. It will take years to code competitive alternatives from scratch or bring old abandoned projects back up to speed, like gThumb, zim, Rhythmbox, and countless other programs just waiting to be replaced by Mono-dependent applications. Once we've become so heavily-invested into Mono that Microsoft decides to strike it down, it could take years for the FOSS desktop to recover...and for what? Why are we allowing ourselves to be suckered into this precarious situation today, only to be sucked deeper in as time goes on? Is it because we have no choice other than to become dependent on Mono? Is it because Mono/.NET is so technically superior to Java, Python, and countless other runtimes, including the upcoming Parrot, that using anything else would entail creating inferior and substandard software? No, it's just because we're striving for a single unified standard for easy cross-platform interoperability so blindly and without regard for other concerns that we're actually allowing Microsoft to dictate that unified standard: .NET.
(continued again)
|
|
|
As I said, I do not care about destroying Microsoft, and I use plenty of proprietary products, even ones made by Microsoft. However, the patent threat to Mono and ALL software based on it is very real, and I believe it's naive and careless to promote a cavalier attitude towards that kind of threat. In this kind of situation, caution is warranted, and my concern is NOT philosophical; it is entirely practical. If we let the FOSS desktop environments become completely dependent on Mono, Microsoft WILL eventually strike, and it will strike at the moment most damaging to the FOSS desktop and most advantageous to itself. Comparing the benefits of relying on Mono for the default desktop to the inherent risks involved, I can't see any reason to further invest ourselves into liabilities.
The most important thing is that we must not allow ourselves to adopt complacent and cavalier attitudes towards dependency on Mono (and Mono's precarious position in general). Not all fear falls under the category of unwarranted and manipulative FUD; some fear is healthy and warranted, and it can be necessary for survival. You might argue that this isn't Ubuntu's problem: It's Gnome's problem, and it's upstream's problem. In a big way, you'd be right. Ultimately, the future of the FOSS desktop is in upstream's hands, and hopefully enough developers there have enough sense not to put all their eggs into the Mono basket. As long as we have competing software packages with different kinds of dependencies, we'll have fallback options. However, I'm afraid of what might happen if non-Mono projects fall by the wayside, and this is where Ubuntu plays a role: By rejecting Mono applications as part of the default install, Ubuntu can encourage upstream to continue working on safer alternatives, and it can encourage Gnome to return to them (though I'm not sure how receptive the Gnome developers will be, considering Miguel de Icaza's influence).
Bottom line: I'm voting +1, and I hope you do too.
|
|
|
@UnrealMiniMe. I know what he means, but just saying linux is extremely hostile in its own ways (in fact, the distro's can't even decide on a standard type of package management), and trying to force companies to release open source drivers. Its all about perspective.
I'm just saying that Linux itself needs to open up a bit too..
|
|
|
|
Anyway, my point is, Mono is a good coding library.. Get us a good alternative, and sure, none of us will touch it again.
|
|
diegoj
wrote on the 13 Jun 09 at 00:34
|
|
|
Fedora is going to drop Mono in Fedora Core 12.
Fedora Project Leader Paul Frields said: "We do have some serious concerns about Mono and we'll continue to look at it with our legal counsel to see what if any steps are needed on our part".
|
|
|
Diegoj.. No, they never said they will definitely drop it..
They said they are checking the legality of keeping mono. There is a pretty big difference.. They haven't made a decision
|
|
|
THey said there are 'serious concerns', which is hardly irrelevant .
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=223113
Finalzone's Avatar
Finalzone Offline
Community Manager
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,893
fspot is dependant on Mono. The news is starting from F12, mono applications will not be included on Live Media i.e. Live CD; they are available on repository though. It is only a matter of time all mono application to be completely removed should Microsoft decide to trigger lawsuits against FOSS.
now you know andrew, etal.
cheers
YAY!
nl
|
|
|
Neighborlee. And yet, Fedora like Ubuntu probably made no attempt to contact Microsoft, so we are still at risk of getting sued in regards to any of their other thousand patents. So we are still at high risk (unlike Novell).
But that's ok. Mono's a special case because Boycott Novell brought it up first. Nevermind the other cases. What we don't know doesn't hurt us apparently.
I think removing Mono is a good example of "slowly solving the symptoms, not the problem". Apple fixed the problem (they made an agreement with Microsoft not to sue each other), Novell no longer have a problem (they made a similar agreement, but may still be at risk from Apple), we will still be at risk of getting sued from everyone, but thats fine, because at least we can't get sued for Mono.
Furthermore, what's great is that Linus could demand the source code for the Linux Nvidia drivers at any time, which would most likely cause them to drop linux support. But hey, despite the fact that the linux foundation constantly goes lawsuit crazy for trademarks and such, lets IGNORE that. After all, if its Microsoft patents, its all evil..
|
|
|
PS. Linux will only fall MORE behind in usability if we keep removing functionality, libraries and more programs from the LiveCD, because when programs get better, they generally grow in size. Well, we aren't compensating for that really. We are just working around it by removing further functionality.
So now any time any user wants to install a Mono program (and there are a lot out there), they now need to take a few more steps. Whilst in windows every install is one click, I can't imagine why you guys are aiming to increase the number of clicks required to as high as possible.
|
|
|
Except that Richard Stallman is a Free software extremist. And if his opinion was used entirely:
1) Many drivers probably wouldn't work
2) You'd have to take out the official Nvidia graphics drivers
3) The atheros drivers would have only started working recently...
And once again, it could be 100% legal if Canonical tried speaking to Microsoft about an agreement to use it as novell has done.. Because if an agreement is made, then this whole argument technically is useless...
|
|
|
@AndrewLuecke
RTFA please, no extremism there :)
|
|
|
I read it Lorem.. Please read my comment.
What richard Stallman says:
"The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents."
The reality:
Novell got a licence to use C# and such. Microsoft CAN'T force Novell.. He completely ignores that..
I'm not saying supporting mono is correct, but removing Mono completely? Also makes porting windows C# apps to linux harder..
|
|
|
Doesn't matter anyway now. The ubuntu technical board has made a decision!
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2009-June/000584.html
Thankfully, they have decided that Mono will stay. I think the people objecting against Mono don't realise the reality of the situation. If Microsoft did sue for patent reasons, it would do the smart thing and sue over a huge amount of patents (not just for mono). And the fallout would be massive!
Open source projects would stop supporting windows entirely (Openoffice, Firefox, etc) just like what happened with SCO, and Apple would use it to appear community friendly.
Believe me, I'd be a lot more concerned over Apple's patents then Microsoft's (as Apple does try to enforce many of them).
|
|
diegoj
wrote on the 1 Jul 09 at 14:31
|
|
|
> Open source projects would stop supporting windows entirely (Openoffice, Firefox, etc) just like what happened with SCO, and Apple would use it to appear community friendly.
And do you really think that Microsoft is worried about it?
|
|
|
Yes Diegoj. Why wouldn't they be? In the long run it would be devastating, and Apple would thrive on it. Why would Microsoft do something that would generate only a miniscule amount of income, but encourage everyone to stop supporting their standards to ensure they are no longer at risk!
Despite all that, Linus has sued companies over the use of the Linux trademark. Furthermore, nothing is stopping him from demanding that all closed source drivers are removed from our distro. Strangely enough, we are at risk too from our own kernel team! Does that mean we should fork the kernel or dump it entirely?
Furthermore, should we also remove all proprietary codecs and encryption methods from the repository? After all, we might get sued for licencing costs, and many forms of encryption can't be exported to certain countries.
My point is that you guys are whinging about 1 tiny patent. The reality is that if Microsoft REALLY wanted to sue, they have a rediculous amount of patents we tread on anyway! So if you guys are that concerned, you need to do a FULL effort. Scan through all the interface and code in Ubuntu, and identify areas which are patented and remove them.
I can't honestly believe you guys think that if Microsoft wanted to sue, that they would only sue over 1 or 2 Mono patents. LOL. Sorry, if I was a multimillion dollar corporation, I'd hire a lawyer to scan over Ubuntu myself, and pick out the hundreds of patent violations, and sue over them all at once.
|
|
|
Btw, how far are you guys willing to go to protect yourself from getting sued? You either go all the way, or you protect yourself from the riskiest companies. You don't do a half arsed job and remove half the patent violations from a company, and leave others remaining
Justifying the removal of 1 patent violation whilst many more remain is definitely ridiculous, and if MS was really as melicious as you guys believe, they would just pick another to sue Ubuntu with.
|
Post your comment
|
Blueprint no-mono-by-default:
