Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

[MoonRise]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Do I hear a hint of Monty Python there?

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Noooooooooooo. Please, DON'T. Why are we following the same sad path as GNOME? Anyone knows of any channel to advocate againt this before it is too late?

Mmm...against what? release of 4.4.0? :P

LOL. But seriously, besides its brilliancy, KDE4/Kubuntu offered me a 100% Mono free OS. If we start adding C# hooks, this will lead the way to mono/KDE. Oh, the horror! I thought we had enough with MS, I mean Yahoo sponsoring Canonical
http://www.blog.arun-prabha.com/2010...oo-that-sucks/

Oh well!

[Telengard]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Do I hear a hint of Monty Python there?

You bet you do! I love absurdist humor. Also please note that my comment is even more relevant than you may realize.

[from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.]

Acknowledgement of a notable accomplishment. Something long-awaited, widely desired, possibly unexpected but secretly wished-for, with a suggestion that something about the problem (and perhaps the steps necessary to make it go away) was deeply disturbing to hacker sensibilities.

In person, the phrase is almost invariably pronounced with the same portentious intonation as the movie. The customary in-person (approving) response is a weak and halfhearted “Yaaaay...”, with one index finger raised like a flag and moved in a small circle. The reason for this, like most of the Monty Python oeuvre, cannot easily be explained outside its original context.

Example: "changelog entry #436: with the foo driver brain damage taken care of, finally obsoleted BROKEN_EVIL_KLUDGE. Removed from source tree. (And there was much rejoicing)."

[Telengard]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Noooooooooooo. Please, DON'T. Why are we following the same sad path as GNOME? Anyone knows of any channel to advocate againt this before it is too late?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Criticism

Criticism

Although the C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and Ecma standards which provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing protection from patent claims, Microsoft uses C# and the CLI in its Base Class Library (BCL) which is the foundation of its proprietary .NET framework, and which provides a variety of non-standardized classes (extended I/O, GUI, web services, etc). Some cases where Microsoft patents apply to standards used in the .NET framework are documented by Microsoft and the applicable patents are available on either RAND terms or through Microsoft's Open Specification Promise which releases patent rights to the public,[22] but there is some concern and debate as to whether there are additional aspects patented by Microsoft which are not covered, which may deter independent implementations of the full framework. Microsoft has also agreed not to sue open source developers for violating patents in non-profit projects for the part of the framework which is covered by the OSP.[23] Microsoft has agreed not to enforce patents relating to Novell products against Novell's paying customers[24] with the exception of a list of products that do not explicitly mention C#, .NET or Novell's implementation of .NET (The Mono Project),[25]. However Novell maintains that Mono does not infringe any Microsoft patents.[26] Microsoft has also made a specific agreement not to enforce patent rights related to the Moonlight browser plugin, which depends on Mono, provided it is obtained through Novell.[27]

In a note posted on the Free Software Foundation's news website in June 2009, Richard Stallman warned that he believes "Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents" and recommended that developers avoid taking what he described as the "gratuitous risk" associated with "depend[ing] on the free C# implementations".[28]. The Free Software Foundation later reiterated its warnings[29], claiming that the extension of Microsoft Community Promise to the C# and the CLI ECMA specifications[30] would not prevent Microsoft from harming Open-Source implementations of C#, because many specific Windows libraries included with .NET or Mono were not covered by this promise.

QFT

I could not help but notice that the quote above is from reply number 42 of this thread.


Is the Universe trying to tell us something?

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

QFT

I could not help but notice that the quote above is from reply number 42 of this thread.


Is the Universe trying to tell us something?

You are having quite an inspired morning [1] my friend


[1] Or afternoon/evening depending where you are

[MoonRise]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Hmmmm ..... I know hear HitchHikers Guide!!!! WOW!!! What a morning!

[kubicle]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Noooooooooooo. Please, DON'T. Why are we following the same sad path as GNOME? Anyone knows of any channel to advocate againt this before it is too late?

Mmm...against what? release of 4.4.0? :P

LOL. But seriously, besides its brilliancy, KDE4/Kubuntu offered me a 100% Mono free OS. If we start adding C# hooks, this will lead the way to mono/KDE. Oh, the horror!

I'm still a bit confused about what you're referring to . Then again, I may be just missing something obvious. But Kubuntu/KDE does not install mono by default....and I don't see them doing so in the foreseeable future (what mono software would be included/necessary?).

As far as mono itself goes, I see nothing wrong in providing the possibility for people to write/run C# software on linux (it's a free world after all). I also see no potential problems with that unless things start *depending* on mono (so that you cannot use, for example, KDE without mono...of which I haven't seen any sign of yet) and then the rug gets pulled.

I'm personally not a fan of C# (to me it has "Java" written all over it :P), but that's just my opinion.

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Noooooooooooo. Please, DON'T. Why are we following the same sad path as GNOME? Anyone knows of any channel to advocate againt this before it is too late?

Mmm...against what? release of 4.4.0? :P

LOL. But seriously, besides its brilliancy, KDE4/Kubuntu offered me a 100% Mono free OS. If we start adding C# hooks, this will lead the way to mono/KDE. Oh, the horror!

I'm still a bit confused about what you're referring to . Then again, I may be just missing something obvious. But Kubuntu/KDE does not install mono by default....and I don't see them doing so in the foreseeable future (what mono software would be included/necessary?).

As far as mono itself goes, I see nothing wrong in providing the possibility for people to write/run C# software on linux (it's a free world after all). I also see no potential problems with that unless things start *depending* on mono (so that you cannot use, for example, KDE without mono...of which I haven't seen any sign of yet) and then the rug gets pulled.

I'm personally not a fan of C# (to me it has "Java" written all over it :P), but that's just my opinion.

Well, my issue is not with providing C# bindings, but with promoting Mono. This is explained in the Wikipedia entry. The C# language itself is an open standard, so that is fine. But Qyoto goes, AFAIK, further, and it supports the MS dotnet framework (via Mono), which is my concern (and rightly so, the FSF concern). See here for instance (from Mono's main person, and probably Microsoft's best advocate in the Linux camp):

http://www.mono-project.com/Gui_Toolkits#Qyoto

This whole thing makes me sick. Sure, it is a free world, but MS has been fighting freedom as much as they could, with all sorts of tactics against Linux and Open Source / Free Software. It started as laughter, then it was attacks, and now, at the final stage, it is embrace, extend and conquer.

Next step will be for someone to write a killer app using mono-qt. Then, MS to blackmail Linux users for "violating their patents". Unless you do as they tell you.

Thank you, but no, thanks.

[kubicle]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Well, my issue is not with providing C# bindings, but with promoting Mono. This is explained in the Wikipedia entry. The C# language itself is an open standard, so that is fine. But Qyoto goes, AFAIK, further, and it supports the MS dotnet framework (via Mono), which is my concern (and rightly so, the FSF concern).

You should really check what the FSF actually said...They specifically said the problem lies with C# itself, and depending on programs written in C# (the problem is not with the free implementations of C# themselves). http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
(They also say a number of other things, including "Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used", although they strongly recommend not depending on C#...and not installing C# apps by default)

Next step will be for someone to write a killer app using mono-qt.

Qyoto/Kimono have been around for years, they are not a new thing just implemented (and they haven't exactly spelled doom for anyone). Even if there are language bindings, "killer applications" are quite hard to come up with...and if you do manage to create one, someone will likely write a non-c# version of it.

Then, MS to blackmail Linux users for "violating their patents". Unless you do as they tell you.

It doesn't really work that way, qyoto/kimono enable c#/mono applications to use qt/kde, not the other way around (they don't make qt/kde use c#/mono)...AFAIK even fedora with their current mono policy has qyoto/and kimono in their repos...language bindings aren't really an effective patent trap.

Thank you, but no, thanks.

That's completely fine, you don't have to install anything in any way related to mono...I don't plan on doing so myself, though probably more for practical reasons.

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Thanks Kubicle from fixing my error, you are right, I was (unintentionally) misrepresenting the FSF position. My position would be: C# is ok, Mono/dotNet/MS Extensions are not. And just in case, I stay away from C#.

But ultimately, even though I agree in that Qyoto allows Mono apps to use KDE libs, I still think that this is dangerous. Not in that KDE can depend on that technically, but it can practically. If someone spends a lot of energy writting a killer app in KDE that becomes a defacto application in KDE desktops, then you are trapped. Not the KDE project, legally, but any deployment of a KDE desktop would be.

Anyway, I just hope this doesn't bring any troubles ...

[Rog131]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

KDE Software Compilation 4.4

> kde-announce >> KDE 4.4.0 Released

KDE Software Compilation 4.4.0 (Codename: "Caikaku") Released


9th February, 2010. Today KDE announces the immediate availability of the KDE
Software Compilation 4.4, "Caikaku", bringing an innovative collection of
applications to Free Software users. Major new technologies have been introduced,
including social networking and online collaboration features, a new netbook-
oriented interface and infrastructural innovations such as the KAuth authentication
framework. According to KDE's bug-tracking system, 7293 bugs have been fixed and
1433 new feature requests were implemented. The KDE community would like to thank
everybody who has helped to make this release possible.

Read the Visual Guide To KDE Software Compilation 4.4 for more details on the
improvements in 4.4: http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.4/guide.php

Read more: http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.4/

> Kubuntu Announcements

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Excellent, still not announced in kubuntu.org. I guess we'll need it soon in Lucid!

[Rog131]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

Virtuoso

> [ubuntu/lucid] virtuoso-opensource 6.1.0-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)
> [ubuntu/lucid] virtuosoconverter 1.0-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)
> If you want to keep your old Nepomuk database > Virtuoso links


KDE 4.4.0 packages

> [ubuntu/lucid] oxygen-icons 4:4.4.0-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)
> [ubuntu/lucid] kdeaccessibility 4:4.4.0-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)
> [ubuntu/lucid] kdeadmin 4:4.4.0-0ubuntu1 (Accepted)
> ...


Rule of thumb
("kubicle")

it's better to postpone the upgrade until you can get all the KDE essentials to avoid possible version conflicts.

[Snowhog]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

it's better to postpone the upgrade until you can get all the KDE essentials to avoid possible version conflicts.

But if you like playing Russian Roulette with a derringer...

[lmilano]

Re: Lucid Release Schedule, Plans, KDE 4.4

it's better to postpone the upgrade until you can get all the KDE essentials to avoid possible version conflicts.

But if you like playing Russian Roulette with a derringer...

Yeah, I'll wait a day ot two