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 274421
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Mono required
by Almindor on Tue 25th Sep 2007 22:33 UTC 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[3]: Mono required
by kaiwai on Wed 26th Sep 2007 01:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


Actually there are patents on mono; the issue isn't whether they exist; no one is denying that (except you), the concern is whether Microsoft will exercise their rights as the patent holder. Given one doesn't have to act immediately with patent violations, Microsoft allow this to simmer for quite some time and exercise when it can inflict maximum damage.

With that being said, however, they have an agreement with Novell for a patent sharing agreement, which will give them the ability to clone technologies, including the patented ones within .NET. Sun is in a similar situation. All things being equal, the issue then shouldn't be so much whether Microsoft will exercise those rights but where those distributors who haven't signed patent sharing agreements, sit into the bigger equation. Will we see Microsoft sue Red Hat and Conical for not playing ball? its all wait and see for now.

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[3]: Mono required
by Matzon on Wed 26th Sep 2007 06:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono required"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

You are aware of the fact, that it is only CLR/IL + C# that has been standardized?
The copying of .NET features, is the part that can hit Mono distributors, that hasn't made a deal with Micorsoft, yet.

Reply Parent Score: 2