Glimps into the future?

[russlar]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Kubuntu utilizes quite a few of the ubuntu gnome utilities.

Only if you install them, though.

[Raven-sb]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Ok here's a link to an article that presents the other side of the coin, http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009...no-is-des.html .

@ PhilT : Actually I think Claydoh has a point. With all due respect to GreyGeek as his posts are informative; one of his posts labeled those who are pro-mono as being mono-fanbois. Now that was just one post out of many, but personally I would have preferred if the name-calling had been left out.

Actually I would prefer that both people from both sides of this issue stop the name calling, as it doesn't help any.

It would be nice to get a debate on the issue where concerns and facts from both sides are presented in a non-emotive way. As I said in my earlier post, I am anti-Microsoft, however I don't know enough about this issue to make a judgment call one way or the other.

Regards,

Raven

[Telengard]

Re: Glimps into the future?

forgive me for being simplistic, and I do admit to being largely ignorant of most of MONO, but now if this different, from a philosophical viewpoint, from samba?

I would rather not use Samba, but I have to interact with Windows and Macintosh computers on my network. CIFS is simply the easiest way for all three operating systems to share files and printing services. If Microsoft changes Windows File and Printer Sharing, then Samba can adapt. Microsoft can never lock me out of my network, nor does the choice of a network protocol impact my daily computer use.

Jeremy Allison has written a nice article which tackles the question head on: http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/299

[GreyGeek]

Re: Glimps into the future?

I AM a Linux fanboi, and I make no apologies about it. IF people who truly love the freedom and rights of the GPL and FOSS do not defend them then what hope do they have that such software will continue to be written?

IF you do not believe that a Linux desktop based on Microsoft's API is not a threat to the Linux desktop and Linux itself, then one of us does not understand how an API will control the desktop that adopts it. James Plamondon, the first MS Technical Evangelist and their first manager/trainer ( the Slog, the Stacked Panel, the Stealth Consultant, etc.) wrote that

Evangelism Is War!

..... The field of battle is the software industry. .... Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total victory ... is the universal adoption of our standards by developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for Microsoft itself: A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software.

I couldn't make it any clearer. Using MONO to re-engineer GNOME and make Ubuntu dependent on it is NOTHING LESS than a WIN for Microsoft. A Linux desktop written to Microsoft's coding standard is a victory for Microsoft. The chain of evidence is obvious:
Ubuntu <-- GNOME <-- MONO <-- .NET <--- Microsoft standards, policies and goals, on their timetable and discretion.

It doesn't even matter that MONO could achieve total freedom from fear of an IP lawsuit or that de Icaza could re-engineer Winforms, ADO, ASP, etc..., to be free from legal threats. The fact is that MONO is at 2.4.6 and MS is about to release .NET 4.0. In TEN YEARS of MONO development de Icaza has never even come close to catching up to .NET's version, and neither has he come close to implementing ALL of the features that are in ECMA and legal to copy! As long as de Icaza is writing software by copying Microsoft code he will ALWAYS be behind .NET and so will the Linux desktop which adopts MONO as its API and dev tool. And, at any time, Microsoft could do to the MONO Linux desktop what it just did to the Apple Moonlight iPhone apps, release the next version of SilverLight built around patented COM so Apple's Moonlight apps for iPhone can't follow. This entire thread was started to make folks aware of that event because it is a beacon signalling that the MONO bridge ahead can AND WILL be washed out and if Ubuntu/GNOME continues down that road it will end in disaster.


BTW, I do not consider the term "fanboi" derogatory. It's just another way to say "apologist", ... Linux apologist .... MONO apologist, i.e. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc, like the the person who wrote the article you referenced, Jo Shields, who works at the help desk at the Oxford computer centre to earn an income and, as he wrote: "I am a member of the Debian Mono Group, Debian CLI Applications Team, and Debian CLI Libraries Team. I've been working on packaging for the Mono stack and applications which make use of it in Ubuntu (and Debian) for just under a year."

Actually I would prefer that both people from both sides of this issue stop the name calling, as it doesn't help any.

Sounds good. Convince the MONO fanbois that we Linux fanbois who've been using Linux for longer than MONO has been around are not the "faux" Linux community and that they are the "real" Linux community. When you get that done come back and let's talk.

wait, what? If Ubuntu's GNOME desktop introduces dependencies on MONO, how does that effect the KDE desktop?

It depends on what the KUBUNTU developers do. Right now, there are NO MONO OR GTK2 dependencies in the KUBUNTU KDE4.3.3 implementation. I did

sudo apt-rdepends kdelibs4c2a > kdelibs4c2a_rdepends.txt

and

sudo apt-rdepends -r kdelibs4c2a > ldelibs4c2a_reverse_rdepends.txt

and those files show that the base KDE4 library, kdelibs4c2a, has NO requirements for any MONO or GTK2 library or application. There are some gtk libraries which depend on kdelibs4c2a because they are GTK bindings to Qt, but KDE 4.3.3 runs fine without them. In otherwords, any GTK2 app can be removed from KDE4.3.3 WITHOUT breaking KDE 4.3.3

[GreyGeek]

Re: Glimps into the future?

forgive me for being simplistic, and I do admit to being largely ignorant of most of MONO, but now if this different, from a philosophical viewpoint, from samba?

I would rather not use Samba, but I have to interact with Windows and Macintosh computers on my network. CIFS is simply the easiest way for all three operating systems to share files and printing services. If Microsoft changes Windows File and Printer Sharing, then Samba can adapt. Microsoft can never lock me out of my network, nor does the choice of a network protocol impact my daily computer use.

From the Wikipedia:
"Samba is a free software re-implementation of SMB/CIFS networking protocol, originally developed by Australian Andrew Tridgell. As of version 3, Samba provides file and print services for various Microsoft Windows clients and can integrate with a Windows Server domain, either as a Primary Domain Controller (PDC) or as a domain member. It can also be part of an Active Directory domain.

Samba runs on most Unix and Unix-like systems, such as Linux, Solaris, AIX and the BSD variants, including Apple's Mac OS X Server (which was added to the Mac OS X client in version 10.2). Samba is standard on nearly all distributions of Linux and is commonly included as a basic system service on other Unix-based operating systems as well. Samba is released under the GNU General Public License. The name Samba comes from SMB (Server Message Block), the name of the standard protocol used by the Microsoft Windows network file system."

One would think, on the surface, that SAMBA and MONO are essentially the same kind of application, one which was created by reverse engineering a Microsoft's application. The difference is in 1) their legal standings and 2) what they are used for.

SAMBA has a totally unassailable legal position, won in court:
"Having been scrutinised by the Software Freedom Law Center, the Samba agreement covers all users of the Samba software and any derivatives thereof. The Samba Team announced:

Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols, without granting an implicit patent license to any Free Software implementation. No per-copy royalties are required from the PFIF, Samba developers, third party vendors or users and no acknowledgement of any patent infringement by Free Software implementations is expressed or implied in the agreement.

So Samba is safe, but the fact that the project needs an agreement like this should sound warning bells for anyone implementing Microsoft technology. Fortunately for us, we all benefit from Samba’s work, but no such agreement exists in relation to other Microsoft technologies, including .NET."

SAMBA is safe. There is NO legal agreement for MONO like that for SAMBA. Microsoft does NOT have to keep the MONO team informed of any patents relating to MONO, or grant an implicit patent license to MONO, nor is it refrained from extracting a per-copy royalty from MONO distributors the way it forced TomTom to license VFAT.

As far as usage:
WIth SAMBA one cannot replace libraries, applications and desktops with SAMBA code because SAMBA is NOT an application development tool, like MONO is. SAMBA is a blessing to Linux. MONO is a DANGER until its legal footing is identical to that of SAMBA.

IF MONO had the same legal footing as SAMBA I would not object to any distro or FOSS coder using it, but I would not use such a distro or application because MONO will ALWAYS be behind .NET and I want the Linux desktop to be AHEAD of Windows, like KDE 4.3.3 is, instead of behind it, like a MONO powered desktop would be. I've often wondered if that wasn't the real reason why de Icaza dumbed down the GNOME desktop.

Keeping the Linux desktop technically ahead of Windows is why I advocate KDE4 and the Qt4 toolkit. It is legally safe, EVERY PART is truly under the GPL, not some ECMA or "community promise", and it represents the state of the computing art, not a two or three year old copy of Microsoft's vision of the computer state of the art, laced through with patent traps and legal landmines.

[Telengard]

Re: Glimps into the future?

GG, KDE may be safe but with Ubuntu integrating Mono I don't believe Kubuntu will remain safe. Furthermore, I believe many other distros are likely to be tainted very quickly.

You have given me another great reason to hate Gnome (thanks!), but I am still looking for answer to my question. Which distros will actively oppose Mono in their distributions and repositories?

[claydoh]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Claydoh,

I think your comment, above:

"No real answers in long-winded responses does not really help promote your viewpoint. "

was a little unfair on GG. A lot of what he has explained has been very helpful to less knowledgeable members; quite a bit of it was in answer to my questions! And I am very grateful he has taken the time to explain things. If people are not interested in this they do not have to read it.

I think it is fair

All I am trying to ask is for some description of what actually happens to us as end-users if something bad does take place. Do our desktops suddenly become unusable? What would be needed to fix my computwer in this case? Remove software, kernel recompile? distro switch?

I guess it is difficult for me to ask this question without sounding like I am taking one side or dissing another

An answer or some at least theoretical scenario that Joe User Non-Geek can understand ans sink his teeth into without necessarily having to become a F/oss licensing and patent expert

[Telengard]

Re: Glimps into the future?

I can't answer for GG, but here's what I think. Keep in mind I am not a lawyer and I don't work for Microsoft, so this is pretty much my own speculations.

The legal and patent issues would have almost no impact whatsoever, at least not until Microsoft could pay some court to award them a verdict against violators. At that point, it is up to the court to decide how to distribute that organization's divested assets.

The ethical issues only affect you if you care whether or not you steal from Microsoft by using their IP without paying for it. I suspect most people don't really care about this in a practical sense, but I would rather not steal from anyone if I can help it.

The technical issues are a serious problem. Once you are using Microsoft technology then you become completely dependent on them for it. Essentially, you will become a Windows user and be at their mercy. I don't want that for myself. I want to stay as far away from them as I reasonably can.

Microsoft controls C# and its API, and Mono copies from that. Now imagine all your favorite desktop apps incorporating Mono. It gives Microsoft an indirect form of control over how you use your PC. By tweaking the API they can manipulate the applications you depend on. I don't really know how to explain it much more clearly except that you have to keep in mind their past behavior like embrace-extend-extinguish.

[claydoh]

Re: Glimps into the future?

thanks Telengard! That is much more towards what I was looking for

[Raven-sb]

Re: Glimps into the future?

I AM a Linux fanboi, and I make no apologies about it. IF people who truly love the freedom and rights of the GPL and FOSS do not defend them then what hope do they have that such software will continue to be written?

IF you do not believe that a Linux desktop based on Microsoft's API is not a threat to the Linux desktop and Linux itself, then one of us does not understand how an API will control the desktop that adopts it. James Plamondon, the first MS Technical Evangelist and their first manager/trainer ( the Slog, the Stacked Panel, the Stealth Consultant, etc.) wrote that

Evangelism Is War!

..... The field of battle is the software industry. .... Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total victory ... is the universal adoption of our standards by developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for Microsoft itself: A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software.

BTW, I do not consider the term "fanboi" derogatory. It's just another way to say "apologist", ... Linux apologist .... MONO apologist, i.e. a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc, like the the person who wrote the article you referenced, Jo Shields, who works at the help desk at the Oxford computer centre to earn an income and, as he wrote: "I am a member of the Debian Mono Group, Debian CLI Applications Team, and Debian CLI Libraries Team. I've been working on packaging for the Mono stack and applications which make use of it in Ubuntu (and Debian) for just under a year."

I meant no offense GG so please forgive me if my post came across as being harsh or unduly critical. I have only seen the term "fanboi" being used in conversation in a derogatory manner to dismiss what the other person was saying.

Just to be clear, I'm not pro-mono. In fact I'm tending towards being very anti-mono. Having said that, I do believe that it is important to look at both sides of an issue, which is why I posted the link to Jo Shields article, to present the other side of the argument.

Actually I would prefer that both people from both sides of this issue stop the name calling, as it doesn't help any.

Sounds good. Convince the MONO fanbois that we Linux fanbois who've been using Linux for longer than MONO has been around are not the "faux" Linux community and that they are the "real" Linux community. When you get that done come back and let's talk.

I have as much chance of doing that as I have of convincing you that mono is ok. Not that I'm intending to do either. I was making a personal observation about those on both sides of this argument.

As I said, I had no intention of offending you and I am sorry if I have done so.

[dibl]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Speaking of a "glimpse" -- here's a glimpse into the proposed new UK law:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20...w-interne.html

[skunk]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Microsoft controls C# and its API, and Mono copies from that. Now imagine all your favorite desktop apps incorporating Mono. It gives Microsoft an indirect form of control over how you use your PC. By tweaking the API they can manipulate the applications you depend on. I don't really know how to explain it much more clearly except that you have to keep in mind their past behavior like embrace-extend-extinguish.

I agree 100%. Anybody who was involved in client side development in the mid 1990s when Java started to threaten the Micro$oft desktop monopoly would be justifyably extremely suspicious of MS standard business practices. MS were 100% behind Java in the browser (remember msjvm?) -- then they added Windows only extensions to the open standard (in violation of the license agreement with Sun) to fragment the market -- then they released .NET (which is nothing more than a clone of the Java VM with multiple language bindings) and effectively used their IE browser monopoly to kill Java applets.

Sun sued in 1997, MS settled in 2001 http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-251401.html

Given their previous behavior, why does anybody think it will be different this time?

[Raven-sb]

Re: Glimps into the future?

I've just finished reading another interesting article about this issue http://ubuntulinuxhelp.com/mono-disc...h-a-developer/ . For the record, my own viewpoints on Mono tend to be akin to the owner of that blog - Ubuntuhelp. I particularly agree with what he has to say here:

I appreciate also your experiences with the anti-Mono (and pro-Mono) camp. Personally I don't like mud slinging, derogatory attacks, etc. regardless which side participates in such activities. When that type of discourse happens, it's just plain wrong, rude and ignorant - And I've seen both sides participate in such activities. In my opinion, people who behave this way (regardless if they are pro or con Mono) should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe I'm somewhat naive, but I think this world has enough problems without people fostering new ones using bad behavior.

Regards

Raven

[GreyGeek]

Re: Glimps into the future?

....
I do believe that it is important to look at both sides of an issue, which is why I posted the link to Jo Shields article, to present the other side of the argument.

As do I, and I have read every pro-MONO article that has been posted, even a lot by folks who know nothing about what an API is or does. That's why, when you cited Jo Shields LinuxToday article, I knew exactly what was in it because I read it the day Carla posted it. Do you really want to know what Jo Shields thinks about Linux help forums like this one? Read it on his on rantbox. The "theme" is obvious. Linux forums, as a rule, don't give useful answers to help those who have problems with their Linux installation. He even says a large percentage of Linux users seeking help don't really want a solution to their problem! So, here is a guy whose main platform is Windows, denigrating Linux help forums. And because he prefers MS dev tools over those available in Linux the "Linux idiots" have to adopt MONO?

.....
As I said, I had no intention of offending you and I am sorry if I have done so.

I knew that, and no offense was taken. Just because someone may disagree with me doesn't mean they are trying to offend me. The reverse is also true.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Glimps into the future?

Speaking of a "glimpse" -- here's a glimpse into the proposed new UK law:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20...w-interne.html

Shock indeed!

I am trying to find a way to distinguish this new situation from a dictatorship, but I cannot.

This is EXACTLY the kind of law that the entertainment industry, represented by its front organisation, the RAII, wants to impose here in the states. Microsoft will lobby for it because they want to use their media patents to block ALL forms of competition. The fact that the USTPO is allowing them to go so far as to patent the usee of keys on the keyboard, keys which predate Microsoft by more than 10 years, is frightening.

Have no doubt about it. This law WILL be used to suppress Linux and FOSS in Britain because Microsoft and its 3rd party sycophants will make the accusations that FOSS is the major cause and source of piracy and IP theft. Why? Because Linux has no back doors which allows corporations or the government to spy on the activities of a Linux user. It's beyond "Guilty until proven innocent." It is 1) be accused, 2) based on the accusation be fined or imprisoned, and if the existing penalties aren't stiff enough (in the mind of the dictator) then new penalties will be created A Priori to punish the "guilty". In other words, if you appose the dictator your punishment will be increased in proportion to your willingness to defend yourself.

BTW, before someone accuses me of spreading "anti-MS fud" let me remind them that the EULA to which they agreed when the tore the cellophane off the VISTA Install CD, Section 6, states: "6. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information gathered as part of the product support services provided to you, if any, related to the Software. Microsoft may use this information solely to improve our products or to provide customized services or technologies to you and will not disclose this information in a form that personally identifies you." None other than Ed Bott, the consummate Microsoft fanboi, called Microsoft out on sneaky changes to their terms in order to justify draconian VISTA EULA modifications. When another, even more consummate MS fanboi, Paul Thurrott, implied that Bott was "misinformed" Bott called him out too, and literally destoryed him in an article entitled Get facts, not spin, about Vista's new license, an unusual title considering Bott's editorial history. IF MS tried to change the provenance of their license once, they will try it again.