314
votes
|
|
353
28
39
|
|
|
|
|
6
votes
|
|
38
38
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
-12
votes
|
|
35
14
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
-38
votes
|
|
9
18
47
|
|
|
|
|
|
-21
votes
|
|
21
12
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
muczy
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 12:36
|
|
|
|
And make Gnote more stable... :-/
|
|
Dim
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 13:51
|
|
|
"Besides this change would allow for the application have the livecd as tomboy needs approximately 50 MB additional package dependencies. "
I don't think it's true. I assume that most of these dependencies is Mono. Tomboy is a Mono application, and removing Tomboy will not remove Mono, because Mono is required for F-Spot.
And please, don't start another Mono war here. All I say is that I doubt that removing Tomboy gets us 50 MB.
|
|
|
DVD's are a LOT bigger (about 6.5 times as big). If Canonical started releasing with DVDs, they would feel compelled to USE that space. That means downloads will take 6.5 times longer, bandwidth will increase by 6.5, Initial installs will probably be 2 to 3 times the size...
It's a slippery slope and holding to 700MB is a good way to cling to the cliff at the top.
|
|
Akerbos
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 17:46
|
|
|
|
It is also a good way to kill off progress necessary to stay in competition, at some point. The point of technology-shift has to be wisely chosen.
|
|
jaenz
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 20:59
|
|
|
i ***** hate this discussion - its so senseless!
there are so many people spending time, to make just another 1 to 1 copy of an existing, stable, and well-used application.
this is pure waste of time!
and since there is more than one app in ubuntu, that needs ubuntu, those silly anti-mono-"arguments" are foolish. (including the fedora guys, which did a bloody bad job here)
|
|
jaenz
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 21:00
|
|
|
whoops, meant
"and since there is more than one app in ubuntu, that needs mono"
|
|
fizyk
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 22:11
|
|
|
|
Maybe there are more apps that require mono, but then again... it would be one less ;)
|
ago
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 16 Jun 09 at 23:27
|
|
|
|
I have used gnote for a few weeks now, it works very well for me, I do not see why it should not be favored over the mono implementation. Sure it is a rewrite and there are duplications of efforts, but it provides the same features (at least all the ones I care about), it has less dependencies, it is faster and uses less resources. That to me is well worth the effort. Even if there are other applications that might require mono, that doesn't mean that you should load up mono when that can be avoided.
|
|
|
One less application depending on encumbered code [ read: groklaw on mono /moonlight] on the backs on a company that thinks we are a cancer and attempts a trojan horse attack.
hey...linux.........................Keep the mono out!! ;)
The Linux Wall Production.
cu
|
|
kenden
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 00:45
|
|
|
Tracker has replaced Beagle in Ubuntu because it is more efficient.
GNote can replace Tomboy too. It's faster and more
memory efficient.
(And then we can start wondering about the 40 MB dependency on Mono for F-spot only (1.7 MB))
|
|
|
Gnote lacks 66% of Tomboy's language support (5 versus 15), and 70% of Tomboy's extensions (4 versus 13).
When it reaches or approaches feature parity, then this question should be raised with the Desktop team at a UDS session.
Until then, dropping Tomboy would involve a CLEAR political move against the recent Technical Board decision to consider Mono innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
jaenz
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 09:56
|
|
|
i would like to know, how many of those, who bitch about mono, actually develop.
for my taste, there are too many blithering idiot, sorry to say that, but this whole thing pisses me off...
|
|
ago
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 13:16
|
|
|
Removing Tomboy because of IP fears over Mono would be against the Technical Board decision. But picking Gnote over Tomboy on technical merits would not be against the Technical Board decision. Quite the opposite.
Having less dependencies, faster start-up time, better performance and lower overall system requirements _are_ technical advantages and do improve user experience.
So the discussion would be more fruitful if those advantages could be weighted against the disadvantages. Stability, translations and extensions were mentioned as areas were Tomboy has an edge over Gnote.
|
|
medigeek
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 15:20
|
|
|
ago brought to my attention this brainstorm.
As ago mentioned, if anyone feels like providing, sending/receiving translations to/from rosetta, you can do so by contacting the author of gnote and coordinating with them about a translation project at launchpad/rosetta: https://launchpad.net/gnote
|
|
ago
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 17 Jun 09 at 16:18
|
|
|
|
It looks like gnote is registered in launchpad as a team, and not as a project, so the team URL is actually http://launchpad.net/~gnote
|
|
HDave
wrote on the 22 Jun 09 at 04:30
|
|
|
|
What a waste of time. Tomboy already works and has a growing community around it. Hard to believe with so many 3+ year old bugs in Gnome that people want to bother with this....sigh...
|
|
|
|
It is better to have GNote, so that we don't have anymore tu install 30+ packets for the Mono environment (if you do not want to)
|
|
|
Yet another vote for complete removal o moNO apps from default Ubuntu installation.
Currently we have Tomboy (should be replaced by Gnote) and FSpot (there are many moNO-free alternatives GThumb and digiKam for example) that require moNo libraries.
MoNo stuff takes to much place on CD is slow, heavy for system resources (high RAM and CPU usage) and M$-dependent, so remove it, please, from default Ubuntu installation. Let a user choose by oneself if wants to install it or not.
Don't force to use this apps like openSuse, be more creative!
|
|
|
"Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use."
It was Richard M. Stallman who said that!
Before you vote, read the full article on the Free Software Foundation website:
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
|
|
|
Some moNO supporters claim that there is no alternative for moNo based applications. It's not true:
1) Tomboy - Gnote, Lucruri;
2) FSpot - gThumb, digiKam (version 1.0 beta based on qt4 is available for testing in PPA);
3) Banshee - Listen!, Exaile
Listen stable PPA:
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/listen-devel/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main
So drop moNO as far as it doesn't destroy whole GNOME desktop environment! Get rid of this M$ trojan horse in Free Software world.
|
|
|
@AndrewLuecke wrote on the 28 Jun 09 at 13:07
I don't want to expand that issue as many anti-Mono comments have been removed recently by moderators who claim to put them all in one idea ( http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/110/ ) Surprisingly, not all comments where submitted there...
As far as replacing Tomboy is concerned:
1) There is a proposed solution for idea 110:
"Solution #3: Replace Tomboy with Gnote and remove Mono package" This idea has gained 22 votes. Please, merge them here.
2) Tomboy could also be replaced by Zim, which is very stable and has user friendly interface
http://zim-wiki.org/
PS. It looks like users' opinion on dropping Mono was partially heard. Fedora Team has decided to exclude Mono from Fedora Core 12 and Solang - a Mono-free alternative for F-Spot- have recently been added to Ubuntu Karmic repositories:
http://www.stefanoforenza.com/solang-is-in-ubuntu-repositories-now/
|
|
|
"I'll also add that Linus himself has sued a few companies here over their use of the linux trademark. What's to say he wont sue Ubuntu too? And what's to say he wont demand that we stop using Non-GPL/open drivers completely and remove them all from the repos? Does that mean we should stop using the Linux kernel, or fork it to be safe? "
Except that patents aren't trademarks, and it is a *requirement* of US law (and some other countries) that a trademark holder actively "defends" the trademark or risks losing it ... and in 1996 some random dude with no relationship to Linux whatsoever tried to take control of the Linux trademark, forcing Linus to take legal action.
(If anyone wants actual details, start here: http://www.linuxmark.org/about.php)
So, yeah 100% totally different situation, and not in any way whatsoever comparable to mono - I wonder why you felt it necessary to bring this up? Is it because you don't understand the legalities? Or is it to spread disinformation? In either case, please stop.
The rest of your "claims" on this idea (and others) where you delve into so-called legal arguments are equally well-founded and truthful. Please stop spreading disinformation and/or ignorance, whichever the case may be.
|
|
|
I'd also like to add the trademark issue is summarized right on the Wikipedia page for Linux, so it is not like this is an difficult issue to be informed about:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#Copyright_and_naming :
"In the United States, the name Linux is a trademark registered to Linus Torvalds.[76] Initially, nobody registered it, but on 15 August 1994, William R. Della Croce, Jr. filed for the trademark Linux, and then demanded royalties from Linux distributors. In 1996, Torvalds and some affected organizations sued him to have the trademark assigned to Torvalds, and in 1997 the case was settled.[77] The licensing of the trademark has since been handled by the Linux Mark Institute. Torvalds has stated that he trademarked the name only to prevent someone else from using it, but was bound in 2005 by United States trademark law to take active measures to enforce the trademark. As a result, the LMI sent letters to distribution vendors requesting that a fee be paid for the use of the name, and a number of companies have complied.[78]"
|
|
|
Andrew,
I'm not sure why you think I don't comprehend the problem - I assure you I understand it quite well. It's nice you choose to attack my credibility, though, instead of simply admitting you were incorrect to try to link Linus and trademarks with mono and patents.
There are a wide variety of options beyond the 2 you list:
1. Microsoft could add mono/moonlight to the Open Specification Promise.
2. Microsoft could make a promise specifically covering mono/moonlight like the Open Specification Promise.
3. Microsoft could join the OIN.
4. Novell could extend patent protection to the entire community.
There are many more options, some much more likely, some much less.
Because it is Novell and (to a much lesser degree) Microsoft that are *promoting* mono/moonlight, the burden rests on *them* to provide assurances the community can rely on.
Right now, they can not. It is possible too - take the technologies listed in the Open Specifications Promise for example. This promise:
1. Illustrates that Microsoft can and will identify some patented interests it has as "safe" for *anyone*
2. Points out the lie when mono supports try to say things like "Microsoft has patents on FTP too, so you better give that up if you give up mono!".
3. Raises the obvious question on why mono/moonlight aren't covered there.
I will thank you in the future not to assume I am ignorant.
|
|
|
This is my last post on the matter in this idea, though I may re-post similar information in other threads if you continue to make the same fallacious arguments.
We are talking about mono. Therefore, as far as Microsoft counts, only those that mono might infringe are germane. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has 12 or 12,500 or 12,500,000.
If Microsoft were to promise not to sue mono implementations, the matter would be settled. No reasonable person would fear using mono because of Microsoft patents, then they would fear implementing telnet. It doesn't matter if Microsoft has 12 or 12,500 patents covering telnet - because they won't go after you for that patent (unless you go after them first.)
It is dishonest to imply that Microsoft itself could not indemnify the mono project.
Furthermore, some other linux project may well violate some Microsoft patents. This has nothing to do with mono: limit the concern to mono here, it is the project under discussion.
It is dishonest to imply that because one linux project (or linux itself) might violate a patent, then no project can be safe.
Similarly, it is true that mono could infringe patents from Apple or Willy Wonka or the Cabedech Harmonica Company. However, these are much less likely, primarily because .NET is not a patented Cabedech Harmonica Company technology.
It is dishonest to pretend then that every patent holder presents the same risk to the mono project. Some patent holders are unlikely to have a relevant patent. Some patent holder are unlikely to take action, even if they hold relevant patents.
It is not a matter of courage or "being scared." It is a matter of knowing that 100% safety is impossible and 0% safety is unacceptable; and then finding a balance that seems to be a good decision. This is called risk/benefit analysis.
It is dishonest to portray reasonable concerns as "being scared" and further pretend that the only solution is "fix them all".
It is dishonest to pretend that I ever implied that there is only one dangerous mono patent.
It is dishonest to pretend that I ever implied that fixing a single patent would make us "totally safe".
|
|
|
Eh its funny how every time Mono comes up the legal debate appears. Ignoring that we need a strong, efficient and effective desktop by default.
Having programs that are run interpreted with heavy libraries is not a way to make an efficient desktop. So that also in my opinion throws Python on the table not just Mono.
Now that we have Vala/Genie that have coding on par with C# / Python piece by piece effort should be used to push away from at first Mono, because that is the easier of targets then maybe Python if possible ( code is going to need rewrites sort of already because of Python 3.x coding it to Genie would be a far better solution ).
For the most part what I'm saying is that effort should be placed to making the entire starting Ubuntu Desktop as close to C/GTK+ only as it can be.
Beside that point Gnote with the 0.5.x series is well into being a Tomboy note replacement (definitely faster uses chunks less memory etc ). Lucruri isn't there yet but it has the advantage of C# coding style over C++/GTKmm.
Bringing in another point of GTKmm that itself takes up more space and makes it harder for shared memory to be useful (i know its about 1 MB memory usage difference and fraction of a second start up difference but things add up ). Why my preference is toward Lucruri despite it being not as complete. On a side note Gnote and Lucruri projects should merge. Taking on Vala coding and the GNote name ( The best name for a GTK/GNOME Note application )
|
|
|
I think it's funny how the *exact* response I laid out was precisely what has finally happened; mono supporters are screaming in joy about how now mono is safe; yet I have been the one called "ignorant", a "zealot", "the reason linux is failing", blah blah blah. Of course, no one has ever bothered to suggest I might have had the smallest of points.
Anyway, moving forward: so long as the application DOES NOT use non-ECMA standard parts of .NET, I will no longer be objecting to mono on its face.
I do not believe that under the Community Promise there is enough of a danger of an attack to reject applications covered under the promise.
|
|
ago
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 8 Jul 09 at 15:14
|
|
|
I find the IP discussion an unnecessary distraction. If Tomboy was written in Python or Java and someone was coming out with a native port, that would be considered for replacement without much ado.
Mono should not be discriminated against on the bases of IP concerns, but it should not receive a preferential treatment either.
As mentioned previously, the main advantage of gnote/lucruri over tomboy is that they do not launch the mono runtime with its associated overheads. This might not be of interest if you have a modern machine and use the note taking application only sporadically, but it becomes relevant if you run it on a system with lower resources and/or if you typically have the note taking applet launched at start-up.
|
|
|
Yes, because these 'technical arguments' in the blog you posted are patently ridiculous. Each one is based on fallacious assumptions about how Mono works and indicates a lack of technical understanding (in other words, the author should RTFM).
A detailed refutation does not belong to this discussion, but suffice to say that Mono dependencies can be shared through the GAC. Installing to private directories under /usr/lib is only necessary for unstable APIs - which cannot be shared anyway.
Back on topic, Gnote currently is a technically inferior application. It offers less than half of Tomboy's functionality and translations, using more than half the disk space and memory of Tomboy. It is also less stable.
Should Gnote reach feature parity and *still* be smaller and faster than Tomboy, the default application should be reconsidered. Until then, replacing Tomboy would be a step back for Ubuntu.
|
|
ago
(Ubuntu developer)
wrote on the 9 Jul 09 at 11:55
|
|
|
Tomboy is not Firefox and most of the functionality is provided by the applications itself _without_ addins. Given that gnote provides all of the application functionality, and half of the addins, claiming that gnote provides "half of the functionality" is misleading. In fact most users would not be able to tell them apart. A detailed list of missing features would be more useful. Synchronization (which should land soon) and Latex support are the most notable ones IMO.
As for size, in karmic tomboy packages size is 2,439.2 kB (installed size 8648 kB), gnote package size is 1,507.6 kB (installed size 4556 kB), so gnote is already smaller than tomboy, and without taking into account the mono stack:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/gnote
http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/tomboy
As for stability, you are probably right, but I have not experienced any problem. The bug tracker does not look particularly scary (1 critical bug):
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=gnote
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=tomboy
As for translations I can count 23 translations in gnote at the moment, which is not too shabby and can easily be improved.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/gnote
Finally, in order for one package to replace another one, it does not need to be better at 360o, it is sufficient that its advantages outweigh its shortcomings. On my system gnote is substantially faster: quicker start-up, more responsive, lighter in terms of memory.
|
|
|
(Sorry new netbook, mouse is funky)
I just read the official Debian CLI Policy. Section 3.1.2 File Locations: http://pkg-mono.alioth.debian.org/cli-policy/ch-packaging.html#s-file-locations
First sentence:
"The package's applications, libraries and meta-data must be installed into /usr/lib/upstream_package_name. "
Last sentence:
"You must not install application files (.exe) directly into /usr/bin. Instead create a wrapper script into /usr/bin to allow them to be run without the .exe suffix. "
This is *exactly* what the author talks about in his blog. *Exactly*
|
|
|
Andrew,
Thank you for the gracious apology. Passions run hot in the FLOSS community, and especially so where Microsoft is concerned, and I would be dishonest if I pretended I never said a harsh word or smart comment either.
I think we all want Ubuntu to succeed and deliver a world-class experience to users. Even if we differ on how to achieve that, the goal is the same!
|
|
berndth
wrote on the 24 Nov 09 at 12:50
|
|
|
So, surely, all the people speaking out oh-so-loudly about replacing Tomboy with Gnote also volunteer for developing and maintaining the latter, so that it maybe doesn't even die after just half a year of lifespan?
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnote-list/2009-October/msg00001.html
Let's see if the Mono hateboys can actually do something useful instead of just spreading FUD.
And let's see if a FOSS project aiming to be a clone of another FOSS project gets enough momentum to survive in the long term. I am speaking about productive momentum, not about flamewar-starting capabilities. We all know that Gnote has those for sure. But what do you expect from a project that seemed to be mostly the revenge for a layoff in the first place..
(And by the way, replacing a package that uses shared-libs for one that uses C++ templates massively doesn't sound like the best idea to save space in the long term either.)
|
|
|
to all the people who say gnote lacks language support and plugin support, I can only say: it has my language, and I don't use any of the plugins (it's a note taking app for crying out loud, you can synchronize notes with inotify and rsync). :P
If it were officially supported as the ubuntu choice, I bet the language issue would be solved in no time. In fact, if Tomboy is open source I imagine it's just a matter of taking their translations and plonking them into gnote. Talk about splitting hairs.
I think concern for duplicated efforts would be more effective if directed towards linux sound programmers. It's such a waste of time to call this a waste of time. You may not believe in the need to keep software free, but consider that you might not be using linux now if these freedoms were not protected in the past.
|
|
|
|
No alternative note taking application can be considered unless it supports Ubuntu One... Can you suggest one that does?
|
|
|
Getting things Gnome will very soon.
Tomboy needs to die. With mono extinguished we can free up lots of room on the CD for more useful things.
|
|
msx
wrote on the 14 Sep 11 at 22:24
|
|
|
Tomboy would be an *excellent* application if it weren't written in Mono - yes, the Micro$oft .NET try-to-put-a-foot-over-the-penguin's-head-effort that stinks.
While Tomboy at this time is really buggy (on Ubuntu 11.04), GNotes works great.
+1 for GNotes
|
|
cheesehead
(Brainstorm admin)
wrote on the 5 Nov 11 at 14:50
|
|
|
The Ubuntu Technical Board and Ubuntu Desktop Team have declined to review this idea.
Current plans for 12.04 include dropping Tomboy (possibly without a replacement at all).
|
Post your comment
|
