Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Jul 2009 20:49 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The Mono discussion may be tiring, but the fact of the matter is that thanks to this discussion, various major Linux distributions are now making official statements detailing their position in the Mono/C# debate. The latest to do this is Ubuntu, which reiterated their position yesterday.
Order by: Score:
mono witch trials
by mphill on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:06 UTC
mphill
Member since:
2009-07-01

That's all the anti-mono crowd is, witch hunters. If it was some other company other than Microsoft this would be a non-existent issue. I mean seriously, they might as well attack AJAX. C# is a solid language based on open standards, and its here to stay. Mono has a lot of potential. Keep up the good work Ubuntu and Debian.

Also, Mono's implementation of .net I feel would be a litigation nightmare for Microsoft if they wanted to test the patent waters. Its not like HashTables, ArrayLists or pretty much everything else in the .net framework is new. WinForms might be one area, but they already have a GTK counter-part.

Might as well have Sun/Oracle sue Microsoft since C# is a virtual rip-off of Java. MS has NO legal recourse and they know it. In the mean time they are getting Linux developers to write applications for their platform!

Reply Score: 1

RE: mono witch trials
by cb_osn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:53 UTC in reply to "mono witch trials"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Also, Mono's implementation of .net I feel would be a litigation nightmare for Microsoft if they wanted to test the patent waters.

There are two issues that ease the patent threat in my mind:

1) Mono is backed by the OIN. Which effectively means that any assault on Mono has the possibility of unleashing patent Armageddon, and:

2) The legal doctrine of estoppel. From my (admittedly limited, IANAL) legal point of view, Microsoft has made many moves supporting the development of alternate .NET platforms (releasing a shared source CLR, standardizing C#, supporting development of Moonlight with documentation and codecs), and has made none to directly discourage the development of Mono. Given this, it seems that estoppel would be a viable defense to any patent assertions against Mono. I'd be interested in a lawyer's opinion on this.

Overall, I think the bickering over Mono is more damaging to the community than anything Microsoft could possibly do. I said the same thing amidst all the ruckus after the Microsoft/Novell deal was signed.

Basically, I can't see any reason why Microsoft would want to attack Mono. Patent litigation is expensive, and in this case, risky. Keeping your mouth shut and letting the FOSS community rip itself apart is cheap and easy.

Carry on.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: mono witch trials
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: mono witch trials"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mono is backed by the OIN. Which effectively means that any assault on Mono has the possibility of unleashing patent Armageddon

They stood by and did nothing when TomTom was being attacked. Sure, they're good at rattling their sabres when there is no actual battle going on... "We stand ready to leverage our patent portfolio, blah, blah, blah". But when TomTom was under seige, OIN hid in the closet.

Edited 2009-07-01 21:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: mono witch trials
by cb_osn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: mono witch trials"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

They stood by and did nothing when TomTom was being attacked.

Keep in mind that the TomTom case was open and shut fairly quickly. TomTom chose to settle shortly after they got the OIN involved. I don't think we can be sure what might have happened if the case played out to the end.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the OIN is all bark and no bite. I'm just not sure that the TomTom case is sufficient evidence to judge one way or the other.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: mono witch trials
by pooo on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: mono witch trials"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

I think one could take your point about the damage of bickering in one of two ways:

1. To people rejecting mono: Just accept mono because fighting over it is tearing gnome apart
2. To people who love mono: Just let mono go because fighting over it is tearing gnome apart.

I agree that it isn't worth it however given that:

a)mono/c# is not yet in gnome core and is being used in very few apps
b)there are alternatives to mono (java/python/c++/ruby)
c)mono is acknowledged to be more at risk than these other options

I think taking your point about the damage of infighting as a call for mono backers to stand down makes the most sense.

So, all you mono lovers, just let mono go because fighting over it is tearing gnome apart (and the other reasons listed above)

Edited 2009-07-01 22:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: mono witch trials
by cb_osn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: mono witch trials"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

I think taking your point about the damage of infighting as a call for mono backers to stand down makes the most sense.

Ironically, even though I am a Mono supporter, this is exactly what I would suggest. There is really no need to defend Mono. The only purpose this serves is to get those who would attack it all riled up. If, as a developer, you like Mono, use it. If, as a user, you prefer an application that happens to depend on Mono, use it. Distributions that provide the applications that users want will be successful-- those that don't, won't. It'll all work itself out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: mono witch trials
by FooBarWidget on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: mono witch trials"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"To each his own" huh? I don't think that works. As a developer the main thing that prevents me from using Mono is the fear that my users will complain about the Mono dependency, no matter how good my app is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: mono witch trials
by Soulbender on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: mono witch trials"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's why I don't write apps in (java, C, python etc) in fear that my customers will complain about the dependency on (JRE, glibc/libc, python etc).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: mono witch trials
by FooBarWidget on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: mono witch trials"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Note that you are talking about "customers". I am talking about "users", people who do not necessary pay for the software and therefore are much more critical about what they install.

Look at Tomboy vs GNotes - everybody's flaming Tomboy for being written in Mono.

It's funny that you mention Java. You've obviously missed all the user complaints about Java being slow and easting tons of memory when used in desktop apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: mono witch trials
by buff on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: mono witch trials"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

It's funny that you mention Java. You've obviously missed all the user complaints about Java being slow and easting tons of memory when used in desktop apps.

What?! Java isn't slow or bloated it runs just fine on a quad-core cpu with 4 Gigs of ram dedicated to the java runtime. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: mono witch trials
by pooo on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "mono witch trials"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

It seems like there are generally two classes of posters regarding this mono discussion:

1. People posting reasoned analysis and thoughtful comments (or at least respectfully trying to). These people tend to agree that Mono should not part of the core of gnome or any distro because of potential licensing issues yet acknowledge that Mono may be good from a technical point of view.

2. People just name calling and trolling. These people think installing Mono is just fine or think mono is fantastic. They tend to point out that all people against mono are just irrational haters (without providing rebuttals in any form) although I've yet to see many people arguing against the inclusion of mono who fit that description. The irony would be sweet if it weren't so annoying.

Edited 2009-07-01 22:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: mono witch trials
by m_abs on Sat 4th Jul 2009 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: mono witch trials"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

You seem to be missing a third class.
3. Those who generalize about the people who disagree with them, for easier to ignore their position.

Reply Score: 2

And also...
by fretinator on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:13 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

After we're done solving this Mono/Novell Sucks/Microsoft Sucks debate, then let's move on to GPL vs BSD, and then finish with Conservatism vs. Liberalism. I'm sure we can wrap up a lot of these big issues today. Tomorrow let's do squeeze vs. roll-up of the toothpaste tube.

Reply Score: 8

RE: And also...
by flanque on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:24 UTC in reply to "And also..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Do you know when we're scheduled to debate the hawtness of lesbians? I'd like to tune in.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And also...
by cb_osn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:25 UTC in reply to "And also..."
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Tomorrow let's do squeeze vs. roll-up of the toothpaste tube.

We know roll-up is best, but still, we all squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until we get to the end of the tube and then we hate ourselves.

Reply Score: 3

RE: And also...
by Lennie on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 11:13 UTC in reply to "And also..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't want to start an off-topic discussion, but concerning the toothpaste, I do both, I squeeze and when I want the last bits out, I do a quick roll-up and throw it out.

Reply Score: 1

No surprise
by SlackerJack on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:21 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

Ubuntu need mono apps to bolster their default install(from a marketing point of view as well), Tomboy and F-Spot have really no top comparisons in the GTK+ software catalog.

If they feel it's safe to use then fine use them because they're good apps but don't be surprised if some patent issue pops up in the future.

Reply Score: 6

RE: No surprise
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:24 UTC in reply to "No surprise"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Tomboy and F-Spot have really no top comparisons in the GTK+ software catalog.

Gnote is an exact and direct clone of Tomboy, written in C++, which runs circles around Tomboy for speed and resource usage. It is poised to quickly replace Tomboy.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: No surprise
by saucerful on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE: No surprise"
saucerful Member since:
2008-06-12

I find gnome-do to be incredibly useful and its currently the only reason mono is installed on my machine. Anyone know of a non-mono alternative? I tried gnome-launch-box but its much slower.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No surprise
by Mellin on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:52 UTC in reply to "No surprise"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

F-spot is garbage it ignores me and downloads all the pictures from my mobile phone and after that slows the pc down eating 100% cpu and lots of ram

Reply Score: 8

RE: No surprise
by aacs on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 10:58 UTC in reply to "No surprise"
aacs Member since:
2008-12-13

I once found a program (can't remember the name) written in C++ that in addition to slurping up pictures into a database and usual photo manager functions, it has a feature that you draw something in a box, and in an instant it pops out pictures that match. The UI needs a bit of love but otherwise F-Spot doesn't even come close to that. The statement isn't so true that there are no alternatives.

Reply Score: 2

It's the developers that matter
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:22 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

With Beagle and Tomboy waning in popularity, being replaced by Tracker and Gnote, F-Spot is really the only Mono app of any significance. I would as soon not see Mono shipping with distros. But what really matters is what developers decide to use. And I doubt they would be swayed much by Mono being, or not being, in the default install, as long as it's just an apt-get away.

After a somewhat lack-luster start, despite a lot of hype out of Novell, Mono seems actually to be losing ground and mindshare, as non-Mono apps show up which show their Mono counterparts up not just politically, but technically, as well. While there is room for debate in the case of Beagle/Tracker, it would be *very* hard to argue that Gnote does not soundly trounce Tomboy. And the Gnote author said it wasn't hard to port from C#/Mono to C++, which tells us something about the supposed productivity advantages of Mono which its proponents seem forever to be going on about.

Mono is a huge amount of hype and bluster, carries a lot of excess baggage with it, causes a great deal of heated disagreement, but doesn't really seem to have much, if any, actual advantages over other development frameworks. And rightfully, it seems to be losing the battle.

Getting included by default in a distro is a hollow victory when it only really has one app going for it. And it would not surprise me at all if that one app got replaced by something else, written in C++, Java, Python, or Vala in the not too distant future.

Reply Score: 6

ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Mono is not Golden Hammer or anything that solves the problems. Mono is somehow as VB and Delphi, a nice platform but really few professionals make big opensource/free applications. Mono itself tries to work so much to achieve more of .NET APIs.

The reason that beagle I think did not succeed on other distros than Suse and Foresight, excluding political reasons were two technical limitations of Mono VM: a bad JIT and bad GC. Solving hopefully the GC in one year from now (as JIT was fairly improved) to use a generational, will make few annoying pauses at least on low ram machines. The applications I use that are mono based are FSpot, Banshee and Gnome Do. I don't use Tracker, so makes no difference anyway.

Reply Score: 1

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

But what really matters is what developers decide to use. And I doubt they would be swayed much by Mono being, or not being, in the default install, as long as it's just an apt-get away.

I agree, and I think this is really the most important point of the whole debate. Unfortunately, it is often overlooked.

After a somewhat lack-luster start, despite a lot of hype out of Novell, Mono seems actually to be losing ground and mindshare

This I disagree with. After all, if Mono is losing ground, why are we even having this discussion? It's the very fear that Mono is gaining too much ground (or is poised to gain too much ground) that ignited the argument.

as non-Mono apps show up which show their Mono counterparts up not just politically, but technically, as well. While there is room for debate in the case of Beagle/Tracker, it would be *very* hard to argue that Gnote does not soundly trounce Tomboy.

I've read some differing opinions on the comparison of Gnote to Tomboy, but I will not argue the point. I will say that I am glad apps are finally emerging that challenge these supposedly top of their class Mono apps. The competition is good for users, and, honestly, I think it's good for Mono.

And the Gnote author said it wasn't hard to port from C#/Mono to C++, which tells us something about the supposed productivity advantages of Mono which its proponents seem forever to be going on about.

It really tells us nothing. Porting a finished app with known requirements to another language is mostly trivial. The initial development where designs and requirements are constantly changing is where more nimble languages like C# really pay off.

Mono is a huge amount of hype and bluster, carries a lot of excess baggage with it, causes a great deal of heated disagreement, but doesn't really seem to have much, if any, actual advantages over other development frameworks.

It's a bit self-righteous to claim that Mono has no actual advantages over other development frameworks. Clearly, those that prefer to use Mono do so because they feel that it does offer actual advantages for them.

And it would not surprise me at all if that one app got replaced by something else, written in C++, Java, Python, or Vala in the not too distant future.

Python and C++, sure, but it would very much surprise me if that one app was replaced with something written in Java or Vala. ;-)

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Getting included by default in a distro is a hollow victory when it only really has one app going for it.


So in order words this all a lot of ado about nothing. If Mono does not catch on and have no applications going for it it will be removed from the default at some point in time. I'm sure it's not the first time something has been added and removed from the default install and as far as I can tell that did not cause the world to explode.

Reply Score: 2

aent Member since:
2006-01-25

That was really just an inaccurate assessment, Ubuntu already includes 2 items by default that use Mono:
- Tomboy Notes
- F-Spot

The next version is likely to also include Banshee.

The Mono applications just develop much faster then the non-Mono counterparts. Applications like Gnote are playing a game of catchup to support rapidly changing code upstream, and nobody has even attempted to pull it off on a larger codebase (Banshee, F-Spot). Projects like Rhythmbox, that are designed in C, have shown they cannot compete with the Mono developed applications.

And we have ACTIVE complaints about software patents in the Linux kernel, why are we worrying about Mono, that does NOT have any active complaints when we do have active complaints to worry about?

Reply Score: 3

aeischeid Member since:
2009-05-25

Gnome-Do and Banshee are both really great apps written in Mono that you didn't mention. I think Ubuntu's statement is somewhat fueled by discussion of replacing Rythmbox with Banshee

Reply Score: 3

Fedora removing tomboy from default
by TechGeek on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:37 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

While Red Hat hasn't made up its mind yet AFAIK, Fedora is removing Tomboy from its default install. The reason? Tomboy includes 50 megs of library dependencies for the only app using mono. Not enough space in their live cd images.

To the first poster, its not a witch hunt when there is a legitimate concern over software patents. Now if the US would get inline with the rest of the world, it might be a different story. But the fact of the matter is that Mono only exists to give Microsoft a leg up on Linux. While that may be fine normally, its a technology they can close up whenever they want.

Reply Score: 4

ml2mst Member since:
2005-08-27

Let's label mono for what it is with regard to Linux users: a classic Trojan Horse, a foot in the door, a nose under the tent, or whatever "slippery slope" metaphor you want to employ.


I fully agree with you. Ubuntu and Gnome lover here, but this is the limit. Ah well, I'm having a Fedora / KDE install fest this weekend ;-)

Reply Score: 0

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Full reinstalls everywhere to get rid of patent threats! Now, that's a good idea. While we're at it, we have to make sure we leave out all of the following, and much, much more.

* MP3, MPEG2, DivX, H263, H264, AAC, Flash video codecs. From now on, we'll only watch Theora+Vorbis vids and listen to Ogg music. ¡No transcoding, you guys! We cannot use the patented codecs. No DVD ripping, of course, or watching media from your own digital video camera. We'll keep video watching to... mmm... Exactly what? Oh, yeah, self-made vids shot on VHS and digitized directly onto Theora. I cannot wait to see your girl's first communion. Sounds like fun! I'll post vids of my wedding... somewhere

* I don't know _for sure_, but I'd say it is bloody likely that Microsoft AND Apple AND Xerox own patents on GUI interaction that are infringed by Gnome AND KDE and X. Let's stick to text consoles until that field is cleared out.

* Let's excise any and all database programs from our systems. We would not want to incur in the wrath of Oracle or IBM, which you can bet your favorite body part they have many sound patents on, waiting to explode (exactly at their convenience).

* No virtualization software lest VMWare bites us in the ass! Not that there will be much remaining worthy of virtualizing.

* Oh, and let's not forget the Linux kernel! I think you better look for something besides Linux. There are thirty-something patent threads on it, just from Microsoft. Sorry, Fedora! We better move to BSD. (and then...)

And on, and on, and on, and on. There is absolutely NO WAY OUT of that poison web of software patents, at least in the USA. The only thing you can do is use Windows and commercial software, and let your providers asume the risk. In most of the rest of the world (because there IS a world out there) you can just lift your leg, piss on those patents, and get on with your happy life... for the time being.

Reply Score: 7

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft has been using their patents against competitors before and they will do it again soon

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Good point, I say stay the hell away from anything that shifty character miguel de icaza has created (like gnome) or been a part of (like the fsf board)

Reply Score: 1

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

That is so very intelligent and insightful!

Reply Score: 3

eprubio Member since:
2008-01-09

Yay! Xenophobia FTW!

Reply Score: 1

Not surprising
by Beta on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:14 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

No one in Ubuntu is particularly bright when it comes to making big decisions, as they’ll always make that short-sighted decision that benefits them in the short term.
Downstream patches…
Proprietary bug management tool…
More proprietary drivers…
and their latest, a proprietary file sync tool, yay!

This choice shows, as long as there is a ‘good user experience’, the software could be powered by a patent-encumbered proprietary dog turd…

I’ve been a Linux fan for ages, partial user of Ubuntu, but their choices *sigh*, never benefit the collective.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by maaxx
by maaxx on Wed 1st Jul 2009 22:25 UTC
maaxx
Member since:
2007-11-06

I see no reason to use Ubuntu. Now let's read this article.

Reply Score: 1

Wary not Weary
by Amiga64 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 23:03 UTC
Amiga64
Member since:
2009-06-30

I know, I'm a pedantic SOB but this one really gets my goat.

We're *wary* of mono because of patents and Microsoft.

If we're *weary* of anything, it's the endless debate on the subject.

wary = cautious, untrusting
weary = tired

thanks bye!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wary not Weary
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Jul 2009 23:07 UTC in reply to "Wary not Weary"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thanks, fixing.

Note, though, that English is only one of a few languages I speak. Mistakes are bound to occur ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wary not Weary
by cb_osn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Wary not Weary"
cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

Mistakes are bound to occur ;) .

Unacceptable, Thom. I have been reading OSNews under the pretense that you are flawless.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Wary not Weary
by Soulbender on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 07:08 UTC in reply to "Wary not Weary"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I"m weary of all these stupid and pointless discussions.

Reply Score: 2

Use what you like
by buff on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 00:58 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I have always liked to follow the "use what you like" ideology. If you don't like it don't use it. If you like it use it a lot. If it bothers you if it is on your pure system then remove it.

The funny thing with mono and C# GTK is the slow startup time. I was running the GTK C++ version of Tomboy and it launches in a second on my older clunker Athlon. Sometimes I think these new runtime based frameworks are all style and no substance. They run great if you have 4 Gigs ram and a new CPU. On older systems they are, well, lame. I respect people's choice to use this framework or whatever one they prefer.

Reply Score: 3

easy to remove Mono
by Sabz on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 02:59 UTC
Sabz
Member since:
2005-07-07

just as easy to remove Mono if you dont want it on your system

Reply Score: 3

RE: easy to remove Mono
by Mellin on Sat 4th Jul 2009 18:20 UTC in reply to "easy to remove Mono "
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

for how long?

Reply Score: 2

Anti-Mono advocates like half-as*ed efforts
by Auzy on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 04:01 UTC
Auzy
Member since:
2008-01-20

What I find hilarious is that the anti-mono people just want to make a statement against Microsoft.

Microsoft has so many patents that removing Mono would have no impact on Microsoft suing Linux. Any half-decent lawyer would comb through the mountains of code and nitpick every single patent violation, and then slap linux companies with massive lawsuits. Not sure why the online self-proclaimed "patent law experts" don't realise that.

Even worse, you don't see them demanding that closed source kernel modules are blocked from the kernel (such as the nvidia drivers), because technically, they are a violation of the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Actually there are every now and then discussions on the kernel mailing list exactly about this issue.

Reply Score: 1

Logical fail
by DevL on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 09:17 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

"The basic argument is that while Ubuntu takes patent claims seriously, the simple fact of the matter is that they have received no patent claim from the rights holder (Microsoft). They add that no other project has received such claims either, and that Ubuntu will only act upon claims from the rights holder, and not from 3rd parties."

I've yet to be involved in a car crash. Hence there is no point in strapping myself in or having airbags in my car.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Logical fail
by Lobotomik on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 09:47 UTC in reply to "Logical fail"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Yeah, that is true. Let's all stop using the free software motorcycle and buckle up to Microsoft's and Apple's safety.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Logical fail
by vivainio on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 10:18 UTC in reply to "Logical fail"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I've yet to be involved in a car crash. Hence there is no point in strapping myself in or having airbags in my car.


Colin Watson (of Ubuntu) quoth last month:


At present, were there to be an issue, Mono would be easy to extricate. Making it more of a core requirement is likely to encounter some performance concerns at present anyway, since the budget for desktop startup is increasingly tight as we work on boot performance.


https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-June/028347.html

Ubuntu has a rather level headed attitude towards this. They'll take the apps with gratitude, but won't dig too deep a hole for themselves. Pretty much in line with RMS' stance, actually.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Logical fail
by aeischeid on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 14:23 UTC in reply to "Logical fail"
aeischeid Member since:
2009-05-25

"The basic argument is that while Ubuntu takes patent claims seriously, the simple fact of the matter is that they have received no patent claim from the rights holder (Microsoft). They add that no other project has received such claims either, and that Ubuntu will only act upon claims from the rights holder, and not from 3rd parties."

I've yet to be involved in a car crash. Hence there is no point in strapping myself in or having airbags in my car.


This is actually a pretty good point. I think Stalman's statement regarding Mono might make more sense in this line of reasoning. Of course the car crash analogy isn't perfect. Mono apps could always be ported over if push came to shove. I think Ubuntu is betting that Microsoft won't push, and unlike the car crash thing I think it is probably a safer bet, with less at risk if they are wrong.

Reply Score: 1

Ubuntu++
by aitvo on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 12:14 UTC
aitvo
Member since:
2006-09-03

There is no reason not to use mono. I use it all the time for cross platform development, and to write GUI apps on Linux with GTK# and it would be a shame to have it and all the great functionality it provides removed from an OS because people hate Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

Cannot sue
by 3rdalbum on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 13:01 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

Microsoft cannot sue for the existence of something they helped create. Any prospective judge for the case would turn around and say "Okay, if the development is being done without a license, and if it infringes your patents, why did you contribute to its development?"

Microsoft has contributed code, if not technical assistance, to the development of Mono and Silverlight. Microsoft are not altruistic yet - they are doing it to make-believe to the EU about the ongoing anti-trust investigation. But Microsoft cannot sue regarding Mono.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cannot sue
by aent on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 14:05 UTC in reply to "Cannot sue"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Exactly. I work with an attorney and I asked him about this, and given the fact that Microsoft has directly blessed the Mono project by contributing code and material and even providing codecs for it, it would be difficult for them to try to make any claims against the project. It could easily be argued that Microsoft has accepted the GPL for the Mono project. Any half decent attorney can say "hey, microsoft's site links to this project, recommends users download it, they cannot sue any users of the project if they are recommending users download it"

I'm really glad to see Ubuntu is being rational about this, unlike many of the posters here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Cannot sue
by werfu on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 17:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Cannot sue"
werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Why would Microsoft want to kill Mono? They want exactly the opposite! They want it to expand and get adopted! Mono makes .Net portable (in theory). MS is not encouraging Mono use, but they prefer you use .Net on Linux than Java. It's a non-said sale argument.

There is some sign of mind change at MS. They may have finaly understood they can't own the whole world and their only chance to continue to grow is by cooperating. 20 years ago the IT industry was full of small company that could have change the game anytime. Nowadays, it's happens less often and most of the players are huge one, like MS, Oracle, IBM, etc...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cannot sue
by redbeard on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 18:14 UTC in reply to "Cannot sue"
redbeard Member since:
2006-03-11

“ Microsoft cannot sue for the existence of something they helped create. Any prospective judge for the case would turn around and say "Okay, if the development is being done without a license, and if it infringes your patents, why did you contribute to its development?" “

And this is the point that people keep missing MS doesn’t have to be the one to sue. Does any think that there might be a patent troll out there that has a patent on .Net/Mono “IP” that we don’t know about? Why there are at least a couple of former MS VPs that are in the patent business since they left MS.

Soooo at some point in the future after linux has some uptake in the corporate world along with a mono based app or two that is in wide use, one of these patent troll companies files suit against a few mid-size companies and MS for infringement. Remember a patent holder can sue individual end users of the software. Now MS doesn’t have to fear any retaliation since they are being sued too. MS can settle for some big cash which will include a license for anybody using MS software. The mid-size companies either pay up or fight on doesn’t really matter to MS. MS now crows about how FOSS can NOT protect you like MS can! . . . FOSS software is dangerous to your business. At this point MS has won a nice little victory since all of the PHBs won’t be using that penguin software again since they might get sued . . .

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Cannot sue
by akns on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Cannot sue"
akns Member since:
2009-07-02

So what do you suggest: Redbeard?
Don't use mono because a third party could sue? What about any other software, like python or linux... Any third party could sue them too. So that's not much of an argument for or against mono.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Cannot sue
by redbeard on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cannot sue"
redbeard Member since:
2006-03-11

“Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” My point is this, MS has a history . . . Look at that history and how they have treated their “partners” and how many of those partners survive their dealings with MS. I am not just talking about small players either.

MS will use any tool at their disposal to protect their business to the point of being convicted of abusing their monopoly position. BTW this was when Linux wasn’t even on their radar screen. They have used third parties or apparent third parties to do their bidding in the past, I believe that astroturfing was coined based on MS practices. Look at what they did with the ISO MSOOXML standardization process.

Their FUD attacks on Linux are well known, and to this point have had questionable success. The big guns haven’t come out yet as FOSS isn’t enough of a threat, but they are worried based on all of the attention they are giving FOSS. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that MS has not been strategizing and implementing contingencies to address the threat. Large successful companies must do this and there is nothing wrong with doing it to a point . . . big business is ruthless. Rivals also must continually evaluate what the other side is doing and try to understand where the other side is going and how they might be put in a weaker position.

So ask yourself this, how does mono help MS’s bottom line? The answer is it does not. MS will not have products running on Linux due to mono. So why help the mono project? Goodwill? . . . To help Novel or developers out? . . . or to embrace the competition?

Well you say, no worries the ECMA standards protect us do to the "RAND + Royalty Free" provisions. They might IF (1) you can get a license and (2) mono/.Net were static, which they are not. .Net has already progress (Extended) past the standard and mono is trying to keep up. Each step in this development adds “IP” that can be patented that will be outside of the ECMA standard. So the next step is wait for business to embrace the IP within Linux.

“Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” MS made it clear that Novel and their customers needed to be protected from being sued by MS because of MS “IP” associated with software being developed by Novel, including mono. FUD . . . maybe, maybe not, but MS will work to make it come true when it is to MS’s best advantage. MS will use a “third” party so they won’t be subject to a patent retaliation. This isn’t a real third party, it will be someone that MS can influence but far enough distant so as not to be directly tied to MS (plausible deniability).

So it is not just any third party you have to worry about, but the trigger man for MS. Other IP threats do exists, but when the spider says to the fly,"Will you walk into my parlor?" (http://www.wussu.com/poems/lctlq.htm) what do you do? MS has already told you what they are up to . . .

Reply Score: 1

Few words from a lawyer
by mksoft on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 20:45 UTC
mksoft
Member since:
2006-02-25

Bradley M. Kuhn from the software freedom law center:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2009/jun/29/language-patents/

Reply Score: 1

Where to turn?
by itomato on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 03:06 UTC
itomato
Member since:
2006-05-18

I hate the direction that most GNOME desktop-favoring environments are headed, and it's so widespread now, that it's affected my home. The argument against Ubuntu's inclusion of Mono is two years old, SUSE is riddled with Mono encumbrance, and this Debian maintainer has a knee-jerk reaction to a package requirement, and lo! Along comes Mono!

What does this leave? LFS? The ashes of Yggrasil?

Slackware doesn't seem to ship with Mono by default - can anyone attest to this?

I'm seriously looking for a (Linux kernel) ship to jump to. :\

Reply Score: 1

RE: Where to turn?
by Wrawrat on Sat 4th Jul 2009 01:30 UTC in reply to "Where to turn?"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

With all my respect, changing to another operating system just because it includes a framework is quite childish, if not completely stupid. Don't want it? Don't use it. Even better: remove it. It's not like it was a core dependency.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Mono. It's great to have a rapid application development, but trying to catch up with a proprietary tool is just futile. I believe it would be far more productive if those people were bothering to develop a RAD framework tailored for the FOSS community. Kinda like Python, but faster and better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where to turn?
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Jul 2009 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Where to turn?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mono's tendrils can hardly be said to run deep in any distro. After my Ubuntu installations, simply run:

sudo aptitude remove mono-runtime

and if you care about sticky notes:

sudo aptitude install gnote

The net loss of functionality is f-spot.

I dislike Mono as much as anyone, for a mix of technical and philosophical reasons. But to judge from some people's hysteria, you'd think that /sbin/init had a Mono dependency.

Reply Score: 2

Give it a rest
by redbarchetta on Fri 3rd Jul 2009 03:26 UTC
redbarchetta
Member since:
2005-11-14

I have been following this entire Mono debate over the past week and I must say it is stuff like this that just makes me dislike the open source crowd especially the Linux crowd more. They sound like a bunch of cry babies and kudos for Ubuntu taking a reasonable stance instead of going off the deep end. I use and like many open source libraries for development work and a big thank you to all the developers out there that have made them possible. With that said I am also a software engineer and one who doesn't mind actually getting paid for what I develop and the notion that seems to permeate the open source community that it is some kind of sin to actually charge for one's hard labor is just insane. I was big into Microsoft development products for years then completely dumped them and went mostly Java and open source for years and over the last year I have gotten back into Microsoft by working on some .NET projects. Microsoft has done some wonderful things with .NET and well some not so good things from a language stand point( please Microsoft why the funky Namespace syntax, Java's packages are so much easier), but by and large it is solid and fun to work with. They have made available for free good development tools, libraries, and resources and you can write some good code for nothing but your own sweat. So to the open source fanatics out there, get a life, back off, and open your eyes. There are other products out there that are good and if Mono can incorporate that technology into Linux so much the better. It just gives Linux one more tool in its belt to be successful. Also stop trying to force software development into some kind of communist state where we all have to be part of the borg and it is some how evil to actually make money. It is making money that has driven innovation not socialized society. If there is a chance to be successful from your work then that is a powerful, powerful driver. Aka Microsoft and a host of other companies worldwide that give us our jobs! If you want to be some poor slob working on Gnome in your one bedroom slum apartment all night then by all means have at it, but there are those of us who would like to be rewarded for our work. Microsoft you are doing nothing wrong in this case!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Give it a rest
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Jul 2009 02:20 UTC in reply to "Give it a rest"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I have been following this entire Mono debate over the past week and I must say it is stuff like this that just makes me dislike the open source crowd especially the Linux crowd more.

Get some perspective. No community is of a piece. The folks of which you are probably speaking would likely object to being called an "open source" crowd. You could probably call them a "Free Software" crowd, but then some other members of the "Free Software" crowd, at large, might object to being lumped in. No community is of a piece.

I, personally, am wary of Mono. I know about all the assurances that people give... but I just don't trust it. And it doesn't seem to underlie any functionality which I need. And the resource consumption is horrid. So I just remove it.

As an example of how aesthetically off-putting its resource consumption can be, let's look at Tomboy. When you think about it, creating a sticky note is about the simplest thing one can imagine doing in a gui, right?

Well, with Tomboy, and looking at (res - shared) memory, if you create 10 notes, each of which just says "Hello", Tomboy uses another 7MB for each and every note created. Remember, this is not a document. It's a freaking sticky note that says "Hello". That's absolutely astounding.

Now, one might say, "Yeah, but 7MB isn't enough to worry about". Well let me tell you, I run XDMCP servers. If one of my servers is running, say, 100 user desktops, and each user creates a sticky note that says, "1-918-555-1212", then that's 700MB. If each one of them creates just 6 notes, then over 4GB of system memory is being devoted to storing 8k of data.

There's a lot not to like about Mono *long* before one even gets to any political aspects.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Give it a rest
by sbergman27 on Sat 4th Jul 2009 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Give it a rest"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If one of my servers is running, say, 100 user desktops, and each user creates a sticky note that says, "1-918-555-1212", then that's 700MB. If each one of them creates just 6 notes, then over 4GB of system memory is being devoted to storing 8k of data.

In my quoted example, I forgot to include the overhead for just having Tomboy/Mono running. It actually works out to 2.3GB for 1 note per user. And about 6.5GB for 6 notes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Give it a rest
by abraxas on Mon 6th Jul 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Give it a rest"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

7MB!? That is an order of magnitude larger than what I observe with Tomboy on my system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Give it a rest
by sbergman27 on Mon 6th Jul 2009 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Give it a rest"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

7MB!? That is an order of magnitude larger than what I observe with Tomboy on my system.

Yes. 7MB for each and every note. Tomboy 0.15.2. Mono 2.4. x86_64.

Please turn off swap (swapoff -a) to avoid confusing the issue with pages swapped out to disk. Bring up tomboy and top. Note the (res - shared) value. Add several notes, one at a time, and observe the (res - shared) value of the tomboy process each time. And report the results.

(Don't forget to turn swap back up with 'swapon -a' afterwards.)

I guarantee you are not going to see any 700kb per note (which would *still* be egregious memory use for creating a small yellow window with a tiny bit of text in it). You will see more like 7MB. Perhaps a bit less if you are running 32 bit.

Enough memory to represent twelve 300 page novels... used to store a few bytes of text on a yellow background. Sad... very sad.

Edited 2009-07-06 18:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2