Confusion

[Nakrull]

Re: Confusion

so it will remain as a ubuntu dependancy but it dint answer if it will move to kubuntu
or at least i dint see it so

to make thing clearer
what is MONO
what does it do?
and where does it fit in the whole ubuntu desktop?

sorry to ask thing like that but ther will shurly be someone like me who reads this and doesnt knwo what it is and wont understand the importance in whole

[GreyGeek]

Re: Confusion

... I should probably start celebrating my Linux birthday, huh?

On her next birthday my Wife will celebrate the 45th anniversary of her 21st birthday!

Five years with Linux as your sole OS. Been fun, hasn't it!

[kubicle]

Re: Confusion

The whole problem I have is I'm trying to find an *intelligent* reason for people doing what does not make sense to me.

Intelligent reasons are hardly ever the driving force behind people's actions.

Once I realized that all people are basically idiots (including myself), I've had much more fun :P

[dibl]

Re: Confusion

Once I realized that all people are basically idiots ...

Dammit, I've been found out!




On Scott's post regarding Mono -- that seems very reasonable, to me. A patent give the owner the right to sue someone for infringement -- nothing more. If the Mono patent holder isn't squawking about the Ubuntu use of Mono, and they are aware of it, after a short while their right to announce a suit evaporates. So I don't any reason for concern about it.

[Snowhog]

Re: Confusion

So, I've 'scanned' this thread. MONO and Canonical. Why would Canonical commit its self to a design that includes a dependency to software controlled by M$? Or have I missed something?

[dibl]

Re: Confusion

Their explanation is here:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ne/000584.html

It sounds reasonable to me.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Confusion

Making GNOME dependent on MONO would seem reasonable if one listened only to those pushing for the dependency. Looking deeper you'll find SIGNIFICANT problems still remain.....

...
what is MONO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

Mono is an open source project led by Novell (formerly by Ximian) to create an Ecma standard compliant, .NET-compatible set of tools, including among others a C# compiler and a Common Language Runtime. Mono can be run on Linux, BSD, UNIX, Mac OS X, Solaris and Windows operating systems.

BTW, "As of last Friday (May 22, 2009-GG), Wikipedia started using Mono for indexing and searching the Wikipedia, it was tested first on one server and it is now being used on all three servers. "
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2005/May-30.html

MONO and it's relation to .NET is covered on that Wikipedia page.

MONO was built by the same fellow who wrote GNOME, Miguel De Icaza. He created it, supposedly, by reverse engineering Microsoft's .NET application development tool, AND, with the help of Microsoft. He was on Microsoft's "Channel 9", discussing his MONO experience and history, and his love of MS technology.

Interestingly, De Icaza created GNOME because KDE 1.0 was built using Trolltech's Qt API, which was NOT under the GPL at the time, but a license similar to Microsoft's limited "open" license. He called the KDE a tainted desktop because the Qt API was not under the GPL. Later, when Trolltech DID release the Qt API under the GPL it didn't seem to matter. Now that GNOME is dependent on MONO, the potential Microsoft IP taint seems to matter even less. Strange. Why the fuss then, over a tool by an insignificant (at the time) company with little clout, and no fuss NOW over a tool based on one by Microsoft, whose illegal, corrupt and unethical actions are now legendary and still on-going? Until MONO advocates started pushing MONO the KDE vs GNOME desktop wars had pretty much died out. I mention the history now only to point out De Icaza's contradictory attitudes toward IP taint. I think GNOME is a fine Desktop.

The 2006 Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP): "An OSS implementer that uses GPL software which implements an OSP licensed format, is granted certain copyrights on the software through his GPL license, which are granted by the prior software contributors. In addition to that he is allowed to use Microsoft patents for required format related technology through the OSP license."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microso...cation_Promise

The same page gives statements by FOSS lawyers and proponents that seem to suggest that OSP is "ok". However, others have pointed out "holes" or limitiations, and these limitations apply even to Microsoft's most recent "promise" on July 7th. The crux of the problem was that the 2006 agreement only applied to C# and the CLI, and only as it conformed to the EMCA-334 & 335. MONO has MUCH MORE in it than what the EMCA covers. To make matters worse, the protection applied ONLY to those who used a purchased copy of Novell's SLES.

So, as Matt Asay pointed out a couple weeks ago:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10280924-16.html
Carlo Daffara, an open-source consultant, rightly notes that Microsoft's patent promise is not directly on Mono, but rather on these ECMA standards, which leaves "most of Mono...encumbered as before (WinForms, ADO.NET, ...)."

De Icaza had to know this, given his tight bond with and help from Microsoft, and when the limitation was recently made public, he stated:
Astute readers will point out that Mono contains much more than the ECMA standards, and they will be correct. In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others.

So, until the STILL PENDING license issues are resolved, De Icaza has to fragment MONO into licensed parts and parts which are infringing Microsoft's IP patents. Amazingly, up till two weeks ago MONO fans were proclaiming MONO was "free" of IP taint. Some still are! The GNOME Technical Board made their "MONO Position Statement" on June 30th, a week before. Will GNOME continue forward with a crippled MONO deployment? How will it affect the behavior of GNOME if GNOME is made dependent on MONO? What currently deployed MONO apps in Ubuntu depend on parts of MONO which are NOT covered by the EMCA-334 or 335 standards, as MONO proponents once thought they were?

MONO fans claim it is "easier" to develop in MONO than in any Linux tool. They usually put their statement in the form "There is no tool equal to MONO in the Linux environment". However, having developed GUI front ends to Oracle and PostgreSQL databases using QT4 on both Linux and Windows for four years, I disagree that MONO could be any easier, or even as easy as using Qt4 to create GUIs applications in Linux Besides, MOST of what gives .NET the ability to make GUI's (the Windows framework and API) are still proprietary and patent protected. I don't see any dependency on MONO built into the QT4.5 API. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/classes.html. IF the KDE development crew continues to make the KDE4 and future versions of their desktops dependent only on the QT4 API, and GTK+ become dependent on MONO, removal of MONO from distros using KDE4 will not break KDE4.


And, I DO KNOW THIS: Like the original Microsoft Technical Evangelist said, paraphrased to reflect Linux instead of Windows, "Every line of code written to the MONO API is a win for Microsoft and a loss for Linux. Every line of code written with a GPL'd non-MONO API is a WIN for Linux and a loss for Microsoft. Victory is when every desktop is using the Linux API" IOW, IF you control the API every desktop is using then you control every desktop!

Microsoft has understood that fact for over a decade. Some Penguins don't even grasp it today. Every time I make paraphrase Plamonodon's statement someone always follows it with a post claiming that they are "OS agnostic". as if that were a virtue, and that their approach is "balanced", while I am just being a Linux fanatic. Well, I am guilty of being a Linux fanatic. I have to be. I can't afford to force PC OEMS to put Linux only on ALL their offerings and limit Windows to four. Or, send lobbyist to Congress to bribe Politicians to pass laws favorable to FOSS and the GPL., or hire PR agencies to plant "news" stories favorable to Linux in the paper, TV and web sites. I can't hire a gang of Technical Thugs to visit other OS websites and plant posts that misrepresent other OS's and their proponents, or setup the Slog, or hold symposiums that have Stacked Panels, or get a lot of dead people to write letters claiming that Linux is .... Not that I would do any of that stuff even if I could afford to.

[sithlord48]

Re: Confusion

So, I've 'scanned' this thread. MONO and Canonical. Why would Canonical commit its self to a design that includes a dependency to software controlled by M$? Or have I missed something?

that is exactly what i was thinking snowhog, i have read there reasoning.. but i find it hard to trust any "promise" made by microsoft.

Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C# By. Richard M. Stallman

[Nakrull]

Re: Confusion

thanks for the extensive reply graygeek now i have a better understanding of the whole issue
and totally understand death kittens confusion
specially when comparing to the astroturfers from the pissing all over topic

[Fintan]

Re: Confusion

Thank you very much for the enlightenment.

I don't see any dependency on MONO built into the QT4.5 API. http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/classes.html. IF the KDE development crew continues to make the KDE4 and future versions of their desktops dependent only on the QT4 API, and GTK+ become dependent on MONO, removal of MONO from distros using KDE4 will not break KDE4.

This is the good part

The rest is.. well scary.

[DeathKitten]

Re: Confusion

Microsoft has understood that fact for over a decade. Some Penguins don't even grasp it today. Every time I make paraphrase Plamonodon's statement someone always follows it with a post claiming that they are "OS agnostic". as if that were a virtue, and that their approach is "balanced", while I am just being a Linux fanatic. Well, I am guilty of being a Linux fanatic. I have to be. I can't afford to force PC OEMS to put Linux only on ALL their offerings and limit Windows to four. Or, send lobbyist to Congress to bribe Politicians to pass laws favorable to FOSS and the GPL., or hire PR agencies to plant "news" stories favorable to Linux in the paper, TV and web sites. I can't hire a gang of Technical Thugs to visit other OS websites and plant posts that misrepresent other OS's and their proponents, or setup the Slog, or hold symposiums that have Stacked Panels, or get a lot of dead people to write letters claiming that Linux is .... Not that I would do any of that stuff even if I could afford to.

On this topic specifically, I believe that everything has a balancing point, and that the universe tends to lean towards settling in the middle of any two extremes. That said, in order for this to happen, the two extremes have to exist. In order for there to end up a happy medium between the various OS options out there, which seems to be what these "OS agnostic" types claim to seek, there has to be equal pull from all sides of the equation. Right now the equation is stacked in Microsoft's favor, though Apple is making a very solid and effective rally in their favor, so we need more bold Penguin frontier men and women to try to balance things out.

Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone else installs on their computer... as long as they can show me that they actually did some comparison shopping and truly did pick what works best for them. For example, my dad is a Windows user, but I have a problem with this. Not because I think windows is never the solution, but because he expects my tech support, but won't listen to me when I offer alternatives that won't require nearly as much support from me. He wouldn't let me run a live kubuntu CD for him in his computer, not even mentioning installing it to the computer for him, he wouldn't even consider taking advantage of my boyfriend's employee discount to instead get an Apple computer, he went out and replaced his old and failing Windows XP box with a Windows Vista one. On the other hand, I've got a friend who works for a web hosting company, who is perfectly capable of being the BOFH but instead actually does his job and does it better than the company deserves considering how much they abuse him, and I know he runs Windows. I am fine with this because I know he knows his dren in the open source world, I know he's compared the options, and for whatever reason, he has elected to run Windows (I believe the reason involves computer games, and being able to run stupid frelling programs for work).

Now all that said, I am vocal on the topic of Open Source, Linux and all the related subjects. I crack bad jokes at work about how I could fix our cash lane computers with a live Linux CD, I send feedback at work asking them why we don't sell computers running open source operating systems, and I recommend programs like Firefox, Open Office and VLC to my friends, family and coworkers any time they ask me what program they should use for this task or that. I have recently become quite proud of my boyfriend, for not only did he revisit the world of linux and install it on his netbook*, but he did so with a ubuntu installation.

* He'd purchased this netbook with Windows pre-installed wanting to run a Windows only Wizards of the Coast D&D 4E character creation program, only to find out said program and Windows ran horridly on the machine in question

[aged hippy]

Re: Confusion

<--- Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary --->
agnostic
noun
a person who is not sure whether or not God exists or who believes that we cannot know whether God exists or not
compare ATHEIST
agnostic adjective
agnosticism noun
<--- Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English --->
agnostic
n [C] [Date: 1800-1900; Language: Greek; Origin: agnostos 'unknown, unknowable', from a- 'not' + gnostos 'known']// someone who believes that people cannot know whether God exists or not// atheist// -- agnostic adj // -- agnosticism/-t[hA369]s[hA366]z[hA368]m/ n
<--- English Etymology --->
agnostic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known." Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). /// "I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant." [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

An OS agnostic doesn't know whether or not other OSs exist.

Windows XP doesn't acknowledge the existence of other OSs because in my opinion, if one cannot see them they cannot exist.

I would call this 'self-imposed OS blindness'.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Confusion

My initial goal in life was to be a preacher, and to that end my first two years of college involved lots of courses on religion, Bible and two years of Koine Greek. Then I reflected how poor I'd be at advising other people on how to live their lives, and on how much I missed studying science, and decided to switch to Education and teach high school science instead. After graduating with a BS ED in Chemistry I realized that it was a POOR degree and took courses to level out to a BS in Chemistry and then I earned an MS in Biochemistry, followed by about 40 more hours of graduate studies in Physics, Math, Biology and Earth Science to completely cover all areas of HS science and math. (Back then PhDs were considered "over trained" for teaching HS science and I felt "Doctor of Education", i.e., ED degrees were as worthless as BSEDs.) I ended up teaching 18 years (10 in HS, 8 at college). and then quite to start my own consulting business, which I ran for 15 years, until my last client, the NE Dept of Revenue, gave me an offer my wife wouldn't let me refuse. I stayed with them until I retired a year ago. (Ya, I am 68!)

So, as you can see, I am well aware of what the term "agnostic" means. Those whom I have encountered who claim to be "OS agnostic" used that term to described themselves, it is not a description I gave them. I took their meaning to be that they did not "know" which OS is better, if any. Others have used the term "OS neutral", which makes no statement about any OS, only that it doesn't matter to them. A lot of people prefer the "neutral" term because is has tones of "balance" or "fairness", and it avoids the need to defend Windows or Linux.

However, either way, one cannot escape the issues of continuing to use products from a company which has demonstrated repeatedly that they are trying to destroy FOSS and Linux. It's like living in 1920's Chicago and being forced to buy your beer from Al Capone, and justifying it by ignoring the protection rackets, the bribed police, judges and politicians, and always pointing to the Capone food kitchens as "proof" he isn't a gangster.

[aged hippy]

Re: Confusion

I didn't post that as a criticism of your use of the term "OS agnostic", GreyGeek, it was a tongue-in-cheek poke at XP, which refuses to recognise -- and therefore refuses to admit the existence of -- 'other' OSs.

If it reads as a criticism of your use of the term "OS agnostic", then i apologise unreservedly.

[Nakrull]

Re: Confusion

u surely have a point there so the os gnostic (without the "a") is someone who knows all about os

and so win is an agnostic os because he doesn't acknowledge the existence of other oss
this is getting really biblical here haha

so i must be an apple agnostic
and other os neutral tending to linux
(if it wasn't for the games i would be totally linux, probably said this thousand of times)
so what can i say i have to get the alcohol from Capone because hees the only one who has some
but the fact still remains that it gives u a lot of headache afterwards

like yesterday i downloaded my new nvidia drivers nforce n geforce plus the tools needed to oveclock n physics
downloading the new kubuntu cd would have taken less time because of the huge files and that every time i have to upgrade the drivers
just to get an cmd error saying i didn't have the hardware devices on my system (whitsh is stupid couse i know the hardware i have i fuking bought it) and after cliking on the error message it froze the system and i had to boot in safemode to disable and uninstall just to start all over again

i didnt have that issue in kubuntu
so yes death kitten its like being on a rubber boat in the middle of ocean in a hurricane
up n down left to right n upside down

and all that just to play mass effect whit a stupid crack that messes whit the whole game
i cant buy the game here in paraguay becouse no one sells its has no market only m$ games get sold
just because the whole country is monopolized by m$

i am like the 6th or 7th linux user in like 5or6 million people so telling and showing people that there are other oss like linux overcoming the m$ propaganda is really hard
its not that i dont like doing it its just nerve consuming sometimes couse people keep telling u what their m$ seller programed into their tiny little minds its like trying to run kde4 in a 64mb machine
it "can" work but its slow as hell

sorry bout the rant but i had to get it of my system