http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/110/
This will NOT remove Mono or any of the applications from the Ubuntu repositories, just the default Desktop CD. (Although removing them from the CD may mean they don't need to be in Main anymore)

This affects two applications included by default: tomboy and f-spot. Tomboy can be replaced by either sticky notes or zim and f-spot by gthumb.

[204 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #110


[85 votes] Solution #2: No Mono by default


[75 votes] Solution #3: Replace Tomboy with Gnote and remove Mono package


[32 votes] Solution #4: Promote Vala as a Gnome enviroment programming language


[62 votes] Solution #5: Replace Mono-based applications with Mono-free ones


[23 votes] Solution #6: Shotwell instead of F-spot


[16 votes] Solution #7: Remove the package "mono-runtime" in the live-cd.


]]> en-us Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:50:45 +0000 Thu, 01 Dec 2011 07:10:53 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/110/ Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:02:07 +0000 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:07:04 +0000 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:18:08 +0000 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:22:49 +0000
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.]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:25:44 +0000 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:36:34 +0000 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:31:14 +0000
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.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:51:29 +0000
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.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:43:00 +0000 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.]]> Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:35:13 +0000
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.]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:15:31 +0000 Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:19:38 +0000 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.)
]]> Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:30:11 +0000
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...]]> Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:27:05 +0000 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:33:12 +0000
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.]]> Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:50:20 +0000
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. ]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:20:47 +0000
No, it doesn't. ]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:19:13 +0000 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:21:36 +0000

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.
]]> Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:55:14 +0000 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:54:25 +0000
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.]]> Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:08:15 +0000 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.]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:44:06 +0000
Mono in an independent implementation of an ECMA standard. Get over it, ppl.
]]> Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:26:51 +0000
Why it is so important:

http://jakilinux.org/gnome/mono-linux-i-patenty/#comment-760561
(in Polish, but there are links to English sources,
or you can simply view images, which tells a lot ;-)


In English:

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/15/mono-contamination-in-ubuntu/

http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/20/10/22/59-simple-mental-exercise-identify-
(funny ;-)

http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/27/10/23/17-mono-mono-

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17069/1090/

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17036/1090/
(must-read!)

I hope Ubuntu will remain a FREE OS.




]]> Sat, 10 May 2008 11:19:45 +0000
Cases like these must first be proven. And Mono is merely implementing a public standard.]]> Wed, 14 May 2008 05:45:55 +0000 Wed, 14 May 2008 09:36:56 +0000 "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".
]]> Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:23:43 +0000 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).]]> Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:43:20 +0000 "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. ;-)
]]> Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:48:11 +0000
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. ]]> Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:21:22 +0000
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.]]> Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:11:11 +0000 > 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.)]]> Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:12:52 +0000 Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:31:06 +0000 Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:52:44 +0000 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:36:10 +0000
" 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
]]> Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:07:38 +0000
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.]]> Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:43:01 +0000 Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:04:37 +0000
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.]]> Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:31:57 +0000 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:53:33 +0000
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.]]> Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:40:00 +0000 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]]> Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:01:56 +0000
We want to adopt technologies by technical merit not by marketing pressure or obsesive and pointless imitation.]]> Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:04:24 +0000
]]> Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:15:01 +0000 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:30:15 +0000
]]> Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:46:43 +0000 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:03:06 +0000 Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:41:37 +0000
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]]> Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:31:00 +0000
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).]]> Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:08:02 +0000 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.]]> Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:26:00 +0000
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]]> Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:44:54 +0000 Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:59:32 +0000 http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/
]]> Tue, 26 May 2009 13:15:19 +0000 Wed, 27 May 2009 19:30:33 +0000
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)]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 22:11:17 +0000 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)
]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 22:12:57 +0000
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.
]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 22:13:17 +0000
Removing mono: -54MB!!
Do tomboy and f-spot worth this size?!

gnote (https://launchpad.net/~gnote/+archive/ppa) is exactly the same as tomboy.
gnote: +3.4MB
gthumb: +9.4MB

TOTAL: -41.2MB
For the ubuntu CD I think it is worth removing Mono...]]> Sat, 30 May 2009 23:40:26 +0000 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".]]> Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:34:19 +0000
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
]]> Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:14:04 +0000
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

consider this, please :)]]> Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:10:31 +0000
RTFA please, no extremism there :) ]]> Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:42:15 +0000 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?]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:31:55 +0000
1) How does pushing Mono benefit the end user?

AndrewLuecke seems to take the Mono issue in an awfully personal way, without ever stopping to ponder it from another perspective than his own. Trolling and flooding is just a great way to push your own agenda.

"Why are you all acting as though the standard harddisk size is 8GB? Even 512GB SSD drives will be released this year."

Just because you can afford a brand new 512GB SSD next year doesn't mean the majority of users around the world can. Not caring about software bloat is a great way to force everyone to a constant upgrade cycle and trash one of the big advantages Linux advocates often brag about: being able to use older computers for useful work. Developing countries are a huge emerging market with lesser hardware. Do you want them to favor pirated Windows XP just because the recent distributions are too bloated to run properly?

"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."

If you don't care about how well your code performs then perhaps you shouldn't be a developer. Usually performance and well written and maintained code go hand in hand.

For those users with only a little RAM the extra bloat of Mono libs is a real issue.

I'm not against including Mono in the repositories but driving Ubuntu to become dependent on Mono is a turn for the worse.]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:47:00 +0000
I never mentioned a thing about netbooks. I never claimed people in poor countries would choose or even have access to SSD drives. Besides, there is a whole variety of different kinds of "poor" countries, and the spread of wealth inside those countries is very heterogenic as well. Almost all countries have a part of the population with access to IT and a need for it.

Poor countries do away with computers that are at hand - usually they are very old and crappy. As the quality of life slowly improves the small businesses and people get access to newer - though still second hand hardware. I don't think you completely understood the SSD argument, people in poor countries *do not* buy and select hard drives according to cost effectiveness. They take what is available, and it certainly isn't an SSD or even a large HDD. People use age old pirated Windows copies spread on floppies and the software base in whole is quite chaotic.

For your information, I wasn't talking about countries where people are starving. Nobody is stupid enough to ship computers to a country where people are on the brink of death. The majority of developing countries have problems such as malnourishment, but are strong enough to run an infrastructure and standard of living allowing people to buy mobile phones and use internet call centers even if their own standard of living is quite low (A good example is Ghana, one of the better off countries in Africa).

Ubuntu isn't the best of the bunch when it comes to low resource usage, there are vastly better distros for low end computers. Still I see no reason to bloat it even further.

How come removing mono makes installing programs harder? End users will still install programs by clicking on them in synaptic. If we remove mono *dependability* of the desktop but still allow for mono *dependent* programs in the repositories, the dependencies will still be automagically installed when user installs the program. I see no difference. Mono doesn't have any usability over the existing libraries and programs developed on them.

And for your last paragraph. I know and agree on it.

Still, the end users don't even know if a particular program is running Mono or not. We have a non-Mono choice for practically every Mono program built so far for GNU. What is the benefit of replacing existing functional software with software with similar capabilities but a dependence on Mono? I haven't seen an answer to this yet.]]> Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:22:55 +0000 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:28:10 +0000
I'm not a programmer so I won't pretend to have a grasp on all the technical aspects of what Mono does, but I think it is not illegitimate to be concerned about the inclusion in Ubuntu of software that Microsoft may some day try and assert intellectual property rights over in an effort to hamstring the deployment and development of Linux.

It seems perfectly reasonable to remove Mono as a default - especially since the the main software included in the standard distribution that requires it is easily replaceable.

Let people who know of Mono and want it make the decision to acquire it by their own choice. ]]> Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:56:56 +0000 Shotwell is the default photo manager since Ubuntu 10.10]]> Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:41:13 +0000 Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:02:10 +0000