Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Sat 23rd May 2009 04:22 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Eeebuntu 3.0, the Ubuntu distribution especially custom-built for the EeePC, just last week saw its third release of the Base edition-- the edition that includes a minimal amount of apps and features for more advanced users to customize. Though nothing's really been said on the matter, I suppose we can expect the Standard and NBR editions to be updated soon as well.
Order by: Score:
Comment by SJ87
by sj87 on Sat 23rd May 2009 05:19 UTC
sj87
Member since:
2007-12-16

It's got three E letters in its name, mister.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 23rd May 2009 09:40 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Has anyone tried this with the Asus Eeepc 1000HA? I'm looking at that when compared to the 904A; wondering whether either one of them are fully supported (sleep/network etc all work).

Reply Score: 2

Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Sat 23rd May 2009 11:29 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I tried EEEBuntu Base once. It was supposed to be a cut down version of Ubuntu GNOME, because some EEEPCs had fairly space-limited SSDs. So EEEBuntu Base didn't ship with Tomboy notes, or Banshee music player, or Gnome Do or anything like that ... but it did still include the Mono libraries. For no reason whatsoever. Nothing that depended on those libraries was included. They were just just taking up space on the SSD.

As I said, braindead. Utterly stupid.

I wiped it and installed Kubuntu Jaunty. Much faster on the same netbook machine and way more functional.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Braindead distro
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 12:35 UTC in reply to "Braindead distro"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Standard Ubuntu doesn't ship with Banshee or Gnome-DO either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Braindead distro
by r_a_trip on Sat 23rd May 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Braindead distro"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the point was that there were no Mono Apps on EEE-base 2.0, so why did they include the Mono framework? Since that wasn't used by anything.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Sun 24th May 2009 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Braindead distro"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think the point was that there were no Mono Apps on EEE-base 2.0, so why did they include the Mono framework? Since that wasn't used by anything.


Precisely so.

The whole point of EEEBuntu Base is to be a stripped-down version of Ubuntu specifically tuned for netbooks, with a view to supporting even the EEEPC netbooks that have only a limited amount of SSD space available.

They left in the Mono libraries, even though they knew that disk space is at a premium, yet they included no applications that actually depended on those Mono libraries.

Weird.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Braindead distro
by Vargol on Mon 25th May 2009 17:42 UTC in reply to "Braindead distro"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

Well I can't speak for 2.0 but base 3.0 may have f-spot.
It's icon is in the menus but I didn't rty running it, I didn't use 3.0 base long as the wireless didn't work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Tue 26th May 2009 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Braindead distro"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well I can't speak for 2.0 but base 3.0 may have f-spot. It's icon is in the menus


So is it licensed?

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/1/

I wrote to Ms Moloney on April 28, asking for the same information: "I understand that the terms of the licences to the patents which Microsoft holds on the .NET development platform permit people to obtain a royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory licence to use them. I would be grateful if you let me know exactly how one obtains such a licence."

...

There's a been a deafening silence since then. There the matter stands after nearly a month.

...

To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa Claus.


Edited 2009-05-26 13:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Braindead distro
by Vargol on Tue 26th May 2009 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Braindead distro"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

I don't know, Do you know if Novell have licensed the patents required to create a .NET clone, they are after all available royalty free and RAND...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unip...

Edited 2009-05-26 17:36 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Wed 27th May 2009 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Braindead distro"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Do you know if Novell have licensed the patents required to create a .NET clone,


Apparently, even Miguel doesn't know the answer to that.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/

As Shields made mention of this kind of licence in his post - to quote: "Related parties have pointed out with relative frequency that those licenses are available under a 'royalty free, reasonable & non discriminatory' license (sic), but free patent protection isn’t remotely good enough, is it?" - the very first question asked by a reader in the forums provided was how one could obtain such a licence for Mono.

Shields appears to have asked de Icaza about this on an IRC channel and posted the great man's responses which were as given below:

[miguel_] Direct, anyone can request it from ECMA
[miguel_] Well, you can request the docs from ECMA
[miguel_] The Gnome Foundation is a member, and whoever is the member can request the docs
[miguel_] It might be possible also for the public to get them but I dont know what you have to do

And Shields added: "I asked, that was the answer. Make of it what you will."

It looks like the man who created Mono himself is not sure how one obtains this "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licence" to avoid violating Microsoft patents in the .NET specification. Strange, one doesn't hear this point being highlighted too often.


they are after all available royalty free and RAND...


That indeed is the oft repeated claim, yes.

So how do you get such a license? Where is it available from?

When you ask ECMA, they tell you to ask Microsoft.

When you ask Microsoft, even in writing to the person nominated as responsible, you get no reply.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Braindead distro
by darknexus on Tue 26th May 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Braindead distro"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Hold off a second... Microsoft has opened the standard of both the C# CLR and CIL. None of the GNOME apps that use Mono use any of the .NET components at all, .NET support could be completely stripped from Mono and yet these apps would still work. What's all this babble about a license to use it and patents for including it?
You can hate .NET and Microsoft all you want... but don't extend that hatred to Mono as a whole. It's not applicable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Wed 27th May 2009 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Braindead distro"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hold off a second... Microsoft has opened the standard of both the C# CLR and CIL. None of the GNOME apps that use Mono use any of the .NET components at all, .NET support could be completely stripped from Mono and yet these apps would still work. What's all this babble about a license to use it and patents for including it?
You can hate .NET and Microsoft all you want... but don't extend that hatred to Mono as a whole. It's not applicable.


The parts of .NET that are patented are (at least) Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET. These are Microsoft proprietary technologies, and they are not ECMA standards.

The functionality of Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET is included in Mono.

http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

Microsoft Compatible API
Run ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms 2.0 applications without recompilation


OK, so those are patented technologies. How do I get a license to run them on my Linux GNOME system as part of the included Mono libraries?

When you formally and politely ask ECMA and Microsoft this same question, you get no reply.

Edited 2009-05-27 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Braindead distro
by darknexus on Wed 27th May 2009 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Braindead distro"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

When you formally and politely ask ECMA and Microsoft this same question, you get no reply.


Nice of them. Perhaps Mono should split these .NET portions of itself away into a separate package or library, that way there'd be no worries about licensing Mono for use in non-.NET based applications. Why anyone would use .NET for cross-platform development, even with Mono around, is beyond me... it's no secret that .NET on Windows is much more comprehensive than Mono's implementation of it.
If they really must have .NET compatibility, they need to split it off from the base Mono libraries until this issue is settled. Let the open parts be open and used freely, such as the CLR/CIL and GTK#, and to blazes with the .NET part of it until they actually decide to settle the matter.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Braindead distro
by lemur2 on Thu 28th May 2009 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Braindead distro"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"When you formally and politely ask ECMA and Microsoft this same question, you get no reply.
Nice of them. Perhaps Mono should split these .NET portions of itself away into a separate package or library, that way there'd be no worries about licensing Mono for use in non-.NET based applications. Why anyone would use .NET for cross-platform development, even with Mono around, is beyond me... it's no secret that .NET on Windows is much more comprehensive than Mono's implementation of it. If they really must have .NET compatibility, they need to split it off from the base Mono libraries until this issue is settled. Let the open parts be open and used freely, such as the CLR/CIL and GTK#, and to blazes with the .NET part of it until they actually decide to settle the matter. "

Perhaps.

If one is after a cross-platform development environment there are a number of better solutions which do not require excising part of the functionality in order to achieve compliance with licensing.

The first I could mention, of course, is Java. There are huge volumes of information written about this, but suffice to say that there are fully compliant, compatible, powerful development and runtime environments for Java available for all platforms, some of them open source.

Then there is Python.

Then there are at least a couple of native code solutions, such as: Pascal/Lazarus and Qt/Qt creator/C++

So why bother with Mono at all? ... even if one could obtain a version of Mono which included ONLY the free and open parts such as the CLR/CIL and GTK#, there are still other languages and development environments which address the need at least as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Braindead distro
by fretinator on Wed 27th May 2009 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Braindead distro"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

To me, it looks this licence is as real as the unicorn. Or maybe Santa Claus.


That's not nice, that's naughty!

Reply Score: 2

Personally...
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 12:36 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Unless you have a 4gb SSD, I would just use standard Ubuntu 9.04 and install Eee-control. Once you do that, you're set and everything works straight up.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Personally...
by phoenix on Sat 23rd May 2009 20:34 UTC in reply to "Personally..."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Unless you have a 4gb SSD, I would just use standard Ubuntu 9.04 and install Eee-control. Once you do that, you're set and everything works straight up.


Even with a 4 GB SSD, you can still install the full-fledge *buntu. Kubuntu 9.04 runs just fine with several hundred MB of free space.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Personally...
by darknexus on Sat 23rd May 2009 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Personally..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Of course, but several hundred MB isn't exactly a lot these days and a lot of people want more. By all means, install standard *buntu if you don't need a lot of disk space free afterwards on that tiny SSD. The one thing I'd really be worried about is having enough space not only to install all the apps you'd need, as you could do that in most cases, but when it comes time to upgrade you'd need enough space to download all the updates, and typically with a new release that's several hundred mb. It really is amazing how quickly available disk space disappears though, especially running a Desktop system.

Now, if you really want to save on disk space... install *BSD, if you have a netbook fully compatible with one of the *BSDs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Personally...
by lemur2 on Sun 24th May 2009 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Personally..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Unless you have a 4gb SSD, I would just use standard Ubuntu 9.04 and install Eee-control. Once you do that, you're set and everything works straight up.


Even with a 4 GB SSD, you can still install the full-fledge *buntu. Kubuntu 9.04 runs just fine with several hundred MB of free space.
"

But why make EEEBuntu Base, with its Mono libraries included, but no applications that use said libraries?

GNOME developers insist that GNOME does not depend on Mono. So if you are making a bare bones GNOME for a system with very constrained disk space, which is what EEEBuntu Base purports to be all about ... why include the Mono libraries?

Braindead.

If you can fit Kubuntu on the disk, then Kubuntu 9.04 runs on an EEEPC out of the box, and it is faster than any version of GNOME or XFCE (since an EEEPC has working accelerated graphics). Even stock Ubuntu 9.04 has an advantage that it is stock and a lot of people are using it.

So what purpose, exactly, does EEEPC Base satisfy?

Edited 2009-05-24 07:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Personally...
by darknexus on Sun 24th May 2009 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Personally..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

GNOME itself doesn't depend on Mono, I've built a Mono-free version of it before. I don't know why Eeebuntu base included it... simple oversight, maybe. People do make mistakes sometimes... or maybe some of their internal utilities depend on it?
As for what purpose... well, that's a good question. If I were going for the customization angle, I'd use Archlinux or similar DIY systems. *buntu, or even Debian itself, is not what I'd go for if I really wanted to tweak and customize everything. I understand the purpose of Eeebuntu netbook remix, at least that offers something that standard *buntu doesn't offer pre-built. But I don't see any reason to use Eeebuntu base or Eeebuntu full over standard *buntu with Eee-control installed in the case of an Eeepc. In fact, I'd say *buntu should go so far as to add Eee-control to the default installation if an Eeepc is detected. On my 1000HE, my battery life went from 6 hours to 8.5 hours once Eee-control was installed and working via the super-hybrid engine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Personally...
by kaiwai on Thu 28th May 2009 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Personally..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Just a small question; does Eeebuntu come with beagle indexer? also, just because GNOME doesn't depend on it doesn't mean that there aren't components whose functionality has been extended using mono or some other scenario, but one has the option of disabling those options at compile time to avoid Mono dependency? I'm unaware of the circumstances regarding GNOME but I am sure there is a legitimate reason for it - have you tried submitting a bug report to Eeebuntu and Ubuntu?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Personally...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th May 2009 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Personally..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Just a small question; does Eeebuntu come with beagle indexer? also, just because GNOME doesn't depend on it doesn't mean that there aren't components whose functionality has been extended using mono or some other scenario, but one has the option of disabling those options at compile time to avoid Mono dependency? I'm unaware of the circumstances regarding GNOME but I am sure there is a legitimate reason for it - have you tried submitting a bug report to Eeebuntu and Ubuntu?


EEEBuntu aren't really the problem here, its Ubuntu. EEEBuntu is just a re-master of Ubuntu (albeit one that is very questionable now that Ubuntu itself works fine on netbooks).

The debate over inclusion of Mono in Ubuntu rages still.

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

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=634805

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

This is incorrect. Tomboy is a part of the official GNOME desktop, from 2.16. -- raof 2008-10-19 04:39:12

Thanks raof, It seems that you are right. "GNOME does not depend on Mono at all. There is one Mono-based application in the official GNOME release suites (Tomboy) that is easily removable if users are not comfortable using Mono." --Jeff Waugh http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02630.html Perhaps it is correct with GNOME, just not with the official GNOME release suites.


There is help available to remove it:

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/11/16/how-to-remove-mono-from-...
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/04/how-to-remove-mono-m-fro...
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/04/23/how-to-remove-mono-from-...

Once you have removed it, there is help to keep it out:
http://tim.thechases.com/mononono/

There is a no-Mono replacement for the most popular Mono application Tomboy Notes (which seems to be part of the default GNOME desktop since 2.16).

http://lwn.net/Articles/331187/
http://live.gnome.org/Gnote

Perhaps use Exaile rather than Banshee.

There does not, however, seem to be similar options for FSpot or GNOME Do.

However, to me, the whole question is rather silly.

Just use Kubuntu, KDE4 (version 4.2.3 from kubuntu-experimental is great), Amarok, Basket Notes, Krunner and Digikam. Solves the whole problem, and gives you better functionality and a faster desktop as a bonus.

sudo apt-get purge libmono0 mono-common

sudo apt-get remove gnome-desktop

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

Done. All properly licensed now.

Edited 2009-05-28 03:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Personally...
by kaiwai on Thu 28th May 2009 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Personally..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

EEEBuntu aren't really the problem here, its Ubuntu. EEEBuntu is just a re-master of Ubuntu (albeit one that is very questionable now that Ubuntu itself works fine on netbooks).


Questionable? why? what have they done wrong? are they doing something ilegal or immoral? I suggest you look for a better word than 'questionable' give the invocation it makes makes regarding the moral integcrity of the subejct you're referring to.

Eeebuntu is still required because it includes the Eee PC control widgets along with making sure it actually works with the Eee PC rather than it being just another generic distribution trying to aim to please al. Having used it and seen what it offers; I see nothing wrong with have netbook specific distributions - infact I actually support something that brings about ease of use for the end user knowing that if they have xyz that they can use distribution xyz that supports his hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Personally...
by lemur2 on Thu 28th May 2009 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Personally..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" EEEBuntu aren't really the problem here, its Ubuntu. EEEBuntu is just a re-master of Ubuntu (albeit one that is very questionable now that Ubuntu itself works fine on netbooks).


Questionable? why? what have they done wrong? are they doing something ilegal or immoral? I suggest you look for a better word than 'questionable' give the invocation it makes makes regarding the moral integcrity of the subejct you're referring to.
"

Sorry. It is a matter of viewpoint, I suppose, but I will try to clarify. Since Ubuntu actively encourage re-mastering, there is absolutely nothing wrong with EEEBuntu doing that from a legal or moral perspective.

http://uck.sourceforge.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUbuntu

Clarification: the only thing questionable is the purpose of EEEBuntu. Ubuntu itself works on EEEPCs out of the box. So what does EEEBuntu achieve that could not be achieved by a package or two (instead of a whole .iso re-master)?

That is the question. I thought I had "built" that very train of thought right into the original statement ... but clearly it didn't get across.

Eeebuntu is still required because it includes the Eee PC control widgets along with making sure it actually works with the Eee PC rather than it being just another generic distribution trying to aim to please al. Having used it and seen what it offers; I see nothing wrong with have netbook specific distributions - infact I actually support something that brings about ease of use for the end user knowing that if they have xyz that they can use distribution xyz that supports his hardware.


Details of two packages included in standard Ubuntu Jaunty that should be installed automatically when you install Ubuntu on an EEEPC:

Package Name: eee-applet
Group: GNOME desktop
Details: Eee Applet is a systray applet for monitoring Eee Pc specific ACPI info.
Currently you can :
• Start or stop Wifi
• Start or stop the camera
• Control fan speed
• Overclock the processor
• Enable or Disable the card reader.

Package Name: eeepc-acpi-scripts
Group: Accessories
Details: Sleep (suspend) and hotkeys such as wireless, brightness, mute and volume are all supported by the ACPI scripts in this package on the Asus Eee PC laptop.
Size: 10.6 KiB

If these are not installed by default on an EEEPC model, then install them, and send in a bug report to launchpad for the ubiquity or wubi installer (whichever one you used).

Edited 2009-05-28 10:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2