Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Sep 2007 18:40 UTC
Gnome Ars has reviewed GNOME 2.20. "GNOME 2.20 was officially released last week after six months of development. The new version includes strong incremental improvements that contribute to a better user experience and provide more flexibility and integration opportunities for third-party software developers."
Thread beginning with comment 274342
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Mono required
by Matzon on Tue 25th Sep 2007 19:59 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not trying to start a flamewar, but the fact that Gnome requires Mono (since 2.16, tomboy) is a real turnoff for me.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Mono required
by aent on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:01 in reply to "Mono required"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

so what are you trying to do?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Mono required
by Matzon on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:28 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

so what are you trying to do?
Trying to bring attention to the fact that the dependency on mono is a bad thing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Mono required
by Finalzone on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:12 in reply to "Mono required"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

False, Gnome does not depend on Mono which can be easily removed. Only applications like Beagle, Fspot, Tomboy, Banshee require it. On Fedora you can do
yum remove mono and Debian/Ubuntu, apt-get remove Mono* (Thanks Apoclypse) to get Gnome running without Mono at all.

* Wrote the right apt-get command

Edited 2007-09-25 20:23

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Mono required
by apoclypse on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:19 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

It's apt-get remove mono*

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono required
by Matzon on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:30 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

False, Gnome does not depend on Mono

afaik, Gnome includes Tomboy by default since 2.16, thereby requiring Mono to install.
That I can remove it afterwards, doesn't change the fact that it initially depends on it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono required
by wakeupneo on Wed 26th Sep 2007 06:14 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Only applications like Beagle, Fspot, Tomboy, Banshee require it."

...and as time goes by, more and more "Gnome" applications will be using mono, so simply removing it won't leave much in the way of functionality will it?

I feel about as much at ease with any MS tech being in Gnome as I do with a single ebola strand inhabiting my sandwich. Initially it all seems quite harmless...but oh my, doesn't it turn nasty later on...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Mono required
by phanboy_iv on Tue 25th Sep 2007 20:48 in reply to "Mono required"
phanboy_iv Member since:
2007-09-25

This is too true. I'm tired of people saying that "Mono is required for Gnome" It isn't. It's optional.

Why is Mono such a bad thing anyhow? It's faster than Python, which nobody complains about being tied to Gnome.

It's released under an open-source license, so it's free software.

What exactly is the problem here?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Mono required
by siimo on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Yeah it is true its optional but some distros are *bad* at packaging these optional things. For example this happened to me once:

Removing Mono wants to remove
- Tomboy (understand this)
- Gnome Applets (because tomboy is one!?..)
- Gnome Panel (because applets sit on it..)

etc etc and break the gnome desktop as a result. I am not going to name the distro for needless flaming but merely pointing out that it is usually the packagers fault when removing mono breaks the gnome desktop as it works flawlessly on other distros as others have mentioned.

So first place to complain about such problem would be the bug tracker for your distro.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Mono required
by Matzon on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally, I dont like Mono because of the tie-in with Microsoft. Just because Mono is OSS doesn't mean it's exempt from any leverages MS may - or may not - have. At any rate, I want to avoid it.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Mono required
by rayiner on Tue 25th Sep 2007 21:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Because it's patent-encumbered and uses gobs of memory.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Mono required
by FooBarWidget on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:24 in reply to "Mono required"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

So then don't use Tomboy? Just what exactly is the problem?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Mono required
by segedunum on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:45 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So then don't use Tomboy? Just what exactly is the problem?

Read the article. It will become increasingly difficult to avoid Tomboy and Mono with distributions shipping with it, and if the integration with lots of third party applications happens then it will be impossible to avoid. However, like everything in the open source world, if enough people to decide to use it then that's par for the course.

Although I'm personally not keen on Mono and I think there are far better ways of creating a great looking framework, considering that I've complained about a lack of integration, I think this is no bad thing. Gnome needs a good, straightforward development framework and environment to develop and integrate applications.

Personally, I think when Ximian initially thought about cloning .Net I just wished they'd looked at it practically and took what was good about it, ditched what wasn't going to be practical, looked at what was happening and what was wrong with Java in the enterprise arena, looked at up and coming languages like Python and Ruby and created something new and original.

However, if no one steps up to the plate and creates something good for Gnome developers to get hold of then I'm not sure what the alternatives are. Red Hat (and Sun) could do something with Java now being open sourced and Eclipse, but it's not happening.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Mono required
by Almindor on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:33 in reply to "Mono required"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Agreed. I find it ironic that they celebrate 10 years of freedom by going into the devil's hand.

Mono might be "free software" by definition of the term, but it's certainly not so by the spirit. It's a trap, and very well made one at that. The fact the most people don't see it doesn't make it go away tho...

On the other hand, none of the core stuff depends on Mono [yet] so it's possible to go without mono (as I do now for example). But I'm fairly sure someone will make some core part of GNOME in Mono one day and that's when we're screwed.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Mono required
by spikeb on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:45 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

that's what forking and competing projects are for ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Mono required
by BluenoseJake on Tue 25th Sep 2007 23:49 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"But I'm fairly sure someone will make some core part of GNOME in Mono one day and that's when we're screwed."

Please, take off the tinfoil hat and relax. Mono is not patent encumbered, it's a clean reimplementation, and free software. Just because you don't like MS does not make the technology bad.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Mono required
by abraxas on Wed 26th Sep 2007 04:08 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Mono might be "free software" by definition of the term, but it's certainly not so by the spirit. It's a trap, and very well made one at that. The fact the most people don't see it doesn't make it go away tho...

Your comments and others like it are indicative of a lack of knowledge about the subject. Mono is an implementation of a standarized language. Mono has its own classes and bindings. There are reimplentations of things like WindowsForms but they are unneeded in GNOME and on Linux in general. Those are the only things that Microsoft would even have a shot at taking away from FLOSS and they don't matter to Linux. When is the last time anyone created a programming language they didn't want anyone using anyway?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Mono required
by Obscurus on Wed 26th Sep 2007 03:19 in reply to "Mono required"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Why?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Mono required
by Ookaze on Wed 26th Sep 2007 14:45 in reply to "Mono required"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Not only Gnome doesn't require Mono, but there's now even less chance it happens.
Remember that people were saying that C was not practical anymore for desktop dev, and that we needed a higher level language, like Java or Mono (C#).
Well, it seems like some devs found an easier solution, which is Vala (http://live.gnome.org/Vala).
Well, it's not well documented, but if all goes right (I'm sure there'll be lot of bitching), it could prevent the use of resource hogging (compared to C) Java or Mono on our desktop, without having to go the "harder" C++ way.
Vala is tailored for GObject, which is GTK+ specific, so in my eyes that's the best solution for Gnome main dev language.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Mono required
by Wrawrat on Wed 26th Sep 2007 18:57 in reply to "RE: Mono required"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

In my opinion, the last thing GNOME needs is a new language. I understand the advantages that Vala would bring, but it could deter the occasional contributor from submitting bug fixes or improvement patches. Even though it's close to C#, it's not quite C# and I'm not sure casual developers would bother to learn its quirks. Furthermore, even though Vala generates C code, it's still an additional layer of code interpretation, bringing various bugs, issues, etc.

It wouldn't be so bad if Vala was meant as a general purpose language, but it really looks like "by GNOME, for GNOME", bringing the NIH syndrome to a new level. Without a large userbase, its development could slow down GNOME.

Combined with the new web-oriented direction proposed by Havoc, it looks like the core developers are having fun with a pissing contest or something like that... ;-)

Anyway, my 2.

Reply Parent Score: 3