Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default Installation

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the gonna-need-a-better-girdle dept.

Debian 503

pallmall1 writes "OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome in the next release of Debian (codenamed Squeeze). While that may seem like nothing big (except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package), Tomboy requires Mono — meaning that Mono will now be installed by default. Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms that Red Hat does. Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did."

cancel ×

503 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist (4, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334331)

TFA: "However, Microsoft says clearly that only Novell can supply Moonlight to end-users:".

Rolling Mono (note: Mono != Moonlight) into Debian would be beneficial for both Debian and Microsoft. I don't believe that Microsoft will take legal action against Debian or Miguel, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least considering Microsoft's recent suicidal business divisions.

Re:Frist (5, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334461)

It seems to me that, even if Microsoft threw a fit, the worst case scenario would be that they have to pull the package out of the releases.

I suppose it might be a bigger deal for Canonical, but even the craziest judge isn't going to impose some ridiculous punishment for actions they take on good faith.

Mono is a gateway to cross-platform virii (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334527)

It's just like Wine and DOSEmu: a gateway to viruses that originated on Microsoft platforms. Many will argue that they don't effect linux because they are sandboxed, yet they will effect linux because they will serve to run the mission-critical software that holds the critical and data in that delapidated sandbox.

Besides the fact, better solutions exist than C# and its Microsoft-spired Mono. This is Micros~2 pushing its monopoly weight into markets that it has NEVER EVER produced any product other than the sake of a for-profit venture to schill into Colleges and Universities with their monetary influences.

Get those bums out of here, and take Mono with them. Mono is nothing more than the plastic implementation of a paper bag; who the f*ck said it was progress to begin with?

Re:Mono is a gateway to cross-platform virii (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334645)

Mono is as much a gateway for viruses as is Java. It's simply not. Please tell me how many viruses rely on the .NET platform? The viruses on the Windows platform exploit flaws in Windows (and its users) not .NET.

Please tell me a better solution than C#. I don't know a better general-purpose language, Java certainly isn't. And C# isn't the only language for the platform. Just look at IronPython/Ruby, F#, etc.

Yay First Post (0, Offtopic)

nscott89 (1507501) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334337)

I see Microsoft having a field day with this...

Re:Yay First Post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334355)

I see you masturbating to gay porn

Re:Yay First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334385)

I see stupid trolls... All the time!

Re:Yay First Post (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334991)

What, exactly, is Microsoft going to do with this information?

Fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334341)

trollzors

Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334357)

Perhaps Debian doesn't believe that Microsoft might do something like Rambus did.

Rambus was chastised for their actions (like the linked article states). And I propose Debian approach this the same way someone would approach the Rambus situation from the beginning had they an inkling of Rambus' true intent.

Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI [ecma-international.org] and C# [ecma-international.org] main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent [uspto.gov] on the .NET infrastructure. So far, Microsoft has agred to offer these under a "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of use" and they are currently royalty free [msversus.org] . No one seems to be clear on how you get this into writing [itwire.com] but it's allegedly the way things are.

Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct [ecma-international.org] and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free to interact with .NET. Should they fail to comply with this request in a timely manner, I would submit all communications with Microsoft to ECMA in a motion to dismiss the aforementioned "standards" and remove Mono--and unfortunately Tomboy--from the Debian default package. I'd beef up the Debian wiki [debian.org] with details on how to get these two packages to fix this bug and focus on the bug for a near future release after Squeeze.

At that point, sit back and let ECMA and the community at large hash it out with Microsoft. Better now than later when other things may depend on this package and Microsoft has you right where Rambus has every memory maker on the planet.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334407)

I'm removing Tomboy from my fedora 11 install as we speak.

I never use it and it just sucks up resources.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334529)

I'm removing my cock from your mom's ass as we speak.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334555)

mm, I dunno, I think she needs it in there a little longer. She isn't hollerin' loud enough yet.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (3, Funny)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335081)

I just did an apt-get update on my Ubuntu install. Right before, I checked my e-mail. Does any other slashdotters have nice anecdotes from their computing day? Has anyone opened a document or did a uname or anything that will interest us? I'll be waiting!

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (3, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334429)

Microsoft may just have .NET patents and contracts for their own sake, as SOP. Pragmatically, it would be a mistake for them to sue Debian or Miguel. I think they realize that because they haven't yet gone after Miguel.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (5, Insightful)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334471)

Microsoft may just have .NET patents and contracts for their own sake, as SOP. Pragmatically, it would be a mistake for them to sue Debian or Miguel. I think they realize that because they haven't yet gone after Miguel.

Or they've already gotten him.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (5, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334539)

Did you read their patent claim? If you closed your eyes, had someone else read it to you, and you had no idea the company of which it came from, you would swear it was a Sun patent on Java/SOAP.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334649)

Shouldn't patents be non-obvious, but easy to implement for a skilled professional in the field?

I though that XML web services were pretty obvious (given XML-RPC, SOAP, and every other web framework on the planet), but the difficulty in creating such a framework would be in the implementation.

Re:Call Upon the ECMA Code of Conduct (5, Informative)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334625)

I guess Tomboy is a nice test-case. But all that junk to install just for a note-taking program? Also, wouldn't it be nice if the Slashdot summary told me what Tomboy does?

The project page is a little more informative:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/tomboy [freshmeat.net]

that's irrelevant (5, Interesting)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334777)

Even though Microsoft submitted the CLI and C# main components of .NET, MIcrosoft does hold at least one patent on the .NET infrastructure.

First of all, they "don't hold a patent", they have filed a patent application. Whether that application gets granted remains to be seen, and even if it does, it's unclear what such a patent actually would cover or whether it could be enforced.

Furthermore, even if the patent were valid and enforceable, it is irrelevant as far as Tomboy is concerned, since Tomboy and most other Mono desktop applications don't use the ".NET infrastructure", they use ECMA C# libraries and standard Linux libraries.

Were I a Debian leader, I would simply approach Microsoft with the Mono code and the ECMA code of conduct and demand it in writing that for this snapshot of the code you have a forever royalty free

What's there to put in writing? You might as well demand Microsoft to put in writing that GNU C++, the Linux kernel, and Python are forever free from Microsoft royalties.

Default installation? (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334377)

Last I checked, the "default installation" of Debian didn't even include X. So I'm guessing what they really mean is that they've included it in the default repositories, and if you apt-get gnome you'll get tomboy and mono too.

Re:Default installation? (4, Funny)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334467)

Did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you do something as unslashdot-like as read the summary?

OS News reports that Debian developer Josselin Mouette got Tomboy accepted as a dependency for gnome

Re:Default installation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334823)

Logic? Having gnome depend on tomboy depend on mono does not imply that mono is not in the default install.

Re:Default installation? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334485)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The default install nowadays includes everything, including Gnome, and you need to go into super duper expert mode to get debian-base.
This means Tomboy and Mono will squeeze into default Debian installs as soon as the current unstable hits release in 2020 or so.

Re:Default installation? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334701)

When Ballmer ass-rapes and fukingkills you with his big patented cock, you will finally understand the difference between trolls and informative comments.

Re:Default installation? (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334735)

Debian never releases unstables. they go from unstable -> testing -> stable.

Trolls don't even know what they are trolling about anymore these days... It makes me sad.

Re:Default installation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334961)

The packages that are now in unstable will "all" move to stable. How is that different from releasing "unstable"? The workflow doesn't change the facts. It's different with experimental. Unstable is what stable will look like in 10+-9 years. Mono will be there waiting for you.

Good (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334387)

C# is awesome. Linux is better for having it around.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334685)

Python is awesome. Linux is better for having it around.

Fixed it for ya.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334809)

Python is a fad language with hideous syntax. SciPy and NumPy libraries are -1 redundant. Why the hell would I want to code what Matlab or Maple can do right off the bat?

PyFag: "Wow look at me I'm cool because I use python it allows me to leverage my synergies lolz!!!!11!!!!!"

Re:Good (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334911)

You mean like Perl? or Ruby? TCL?

Yessss (-1, Flamebait)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334411)

As a dot.net developer I'm really really happy to see mono being integrated by default in more and more big distros. It warms my heart to see that not all the Open Source community is a big rabid stallmanist troll, but that there is common sense there as well. A good technology is a tool, and it's great to have the possibility to use it. Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.

Re:Yessss (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334425)

So, what's so good about mono?

Re:Yessss (3, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334541)

Re:Yessss (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334739)

I see some interesting points but nothing explains why the free software community can't make their own mono, why Microsoft still can't use this against F/OSS, or why we should stop arguing.

It's more political bullshit...

"Many of those who advertise themselves as anti-Mono are, quite frankly, frightening. Calling for the deaths of Microsoft employees (see comments on Boycott Novell), or trying to have people who make positive comments about Mono fired (see recent comments on Ubuntu mailing lists), or making insinuations about anyone who does not agree with them (see pretty much every news post on Boycott Novell itself) â" this is ugly behaviour, the absolute worst kind of advert for the âoeFree Software communityâ imaginable. If people want to be âoeagainstâ Mono, then there are sane ways to do it â" for example, by working on or packaging alternative software. Calling for people to be expelled from Free Software communities because they donâ(TM)t work on apps you like is, in short, the antithesis of supporting Freedom. If the anti-Mono crowd want to be taken seriously, then they need to UNDERSTAND what they fight against â" they need to have sufficiently intimate knowledge of what Mono is, how it works, and why, in order to know where to direct their energies (and general shouts of âoeZOMG! MICRO$HAFT!â isnâ(TM)t well-directed). I would LOVE to see some high-quality apps for GNOME written in, say, Java or Python â" as the competition would only result in better applications."

Sounds like Republicans and Democrats fighting over how to tell people how to live their own damn lives. Just because I say Fuck Microsoft doesn't mean I'm a feral animal or that my words are a reflection of the Free Software community in general.

The only Microsoft employee I'd be happy to see dead is Steve Ballmer, the rest I hope just have to find new jobs when Microsoft collapses into it's own greed and blind destructiveness.

Re:Yessss (3, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334849)

Yes, Mono probably has "patents" against it.

So does every fricking application on the planet. 3D graphics? Patented. One click to buy? Patented. What's the bet that Microsoft has patents on half the Linux kernal?

Can't they just do what every other free software project does, and just ignore the bloody things?

Microsoft might sue, but they will probably just laugh. Nobody is going to re-implement the entire .net framework (including all the quirks of Microsoft's database layer, file system behavior, etc). Just look at the difficulties in getting data out of MySQL and PostGres in a sane way! Once you target a specific platform (i.e. the entire Microsoft stack) it's very hard to replicate.

Re:Yessss (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334591)

Open and Closed source worlds are not exclusive and can happily co-exist with each other.

You mean a closed source browser can access an open source web server (or vice versa)? Sure. No one in the FSF is trying to prevent that, as far as I know. But if Microsoft decides to use its patent portfolio to pull the plug on Mono then there's a problem for all of us. Looks like the "stallmanists" might be on to something after all! Like it or not, you can't guarantee that Mono will still be legal next year.

Re:Yessss (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334619)

As a .NET developer (at work), and a Linux user (at home), I don't like this idea. I'm sure you are going to label me "a big rabid stallmanist troll" for pointing this out, but those patents are real, at least if you ask Microsoft. And so is the agreement that gives Novell permission to distribute Mono.

Now, why would Novell sign such an agreement? Easy: Because their legal department advised them to do so. From this we can conclude that Novells legal department has knowledge of legal risks concerning Mono.

Microsoft has already shown that their patents are not for self defence only, when they sued Tomtom over several patents related to the FAT filesystem. Not only is FAT old, there is also nothing about FAT, that isn't obvious to someone writing filesystem. In other words: FAT is not even patent worthy. The .NET framework, however, represents a great value for Microsoft (for one thing, it's the first Windows API that doesn't suck big time), and it's got to have several patent worthy ideas in it.

So, why would Microsoft want to protect something worthless like FAT, but not real value like the .NET framework?

As I see it, it's not a question about if they are going to sue someone over the .NET patents. It's a question of WHEN and WHOM.

Re:Yessss (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334985)

Legal departments are mostly "I'm scared Dave, will I dream?" They do anything that won't put them in an obviously worse position, just in case. Basically they're for negotiation and diplomacy; if Novell thinks Microsoft's claims on Mono are bullshit, they can call it, but Microsoft may raise something else real on them for happening to be uncooperative. If you are a ridiculous joke demanding money, they squash you; look at SCOX vs IBM vs Novell, with everyone else in the business world shelling cash to SCOX because they may have some legitimate claims, while IBM and Novell decided they were full of shit and not a real threat. You're too annoying and full of shit, IBM's going to stamp you into the ground.

Incredible horrifying bloat (4, Insightful)

k-zed (92087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334415)

tomboy package "Description: desktop note taking program using Wiki style links"

"..except for the 50 MByte size of the Tomboy package..."

What's wrong with this picture?

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (3, Insightful)

vintagepc (1388833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334431)

People on Dial-up cringing as they read that?

6 MB (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334477)

It's actually 6 MB for Tomboy itself. The 50 MB figure must include Mono, I guess.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (4, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334531)

What's wrong with this picture?

You mean other than the fact that the statement is bullshit? I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs. The 50MB size is them including all of it's secondary dependencies (which are used by other programs as well) to create a completely misleading picture.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334675)

I have a compiled version of Tomboy and it only comes out to around 5-6 megs.

A 20 minute download for a note-taking app?

The 50MB size is them including all of it's secondary dependencies (which are used by other programs as well)

Used by other programs, true, but not necessarily those included as a dependency for the "typical" Debian desktop install.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334711)

A 20 minute download for a note-taking app?

20 minutes? I downloaded the source tarball in 10 seconds.

Used by other programs, true, but not necessarily those included as a dependency for the "typical" Debian desktop install.

Yes, but you never see anyone include the glibc, alsa, etc dependencies when they give you the size of a C/C++ program. In this case it was just used to create a hugely overinflated figure.

There are people still stuck on dial-up (1, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334867)

20 minutes? I downloaded the source tarball in 10 seconds.

Homes in rural areas of the United States[1] often can't get cable or DSL Internet. So a 10-second download would mean 40 KB, not the 6 MB of the current Tomboy 0.14.2 release found here [gnome.org] .

[1] The United States is home of Slashdot and Software in the Public Interest. People who live in rural areas grow the food that you eat.

Re:There are people still stuck on dial-up (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334909)

So if the yonly have a 4KB/sec download speed the size of a 6 meg package considering the entire time it will take to get the 700 meg debian ISO is going to be trivial.

Re:There are people still stuck on dial-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28335053)

[1] The United States is home of Slashdot and Software in the Public Interest. People who live in rural areas grow the food that you eat.

Please, get those rural people back to work creating food and get them off our tubes.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334793)

A 20 minute download for a note-taking app?

I don't know what internet connection you are on, but 50 MBs only takes 5-10 minutes on my pathetically slow DSL connection. If you mean the 6 MB that only takes a minute or two at most.

But, you don't seem to get the idea of dependencies. To put it with a different language, you are complaining that a program coded in Java requires a Java VM to run, or that a program coded in python requires a python interpreter.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (3, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334717)

(which are used by other programs as well)

Except these other programs are not included as a gnome dependency...

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334857)

Maybe not in Debian because it excludes them but a whole host of other default gnome apps do share it. The fact of the matter is you never see anyone include the sizes of glibc, alsa libs, or any other dependencies (many of which can amount to quite a few megs themselves) when someone talks about any C/C++ application. But whenever a C# app is talked about all of it's dependencies are included on top of the size of the app to create a wildly misleading picture.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334537)

Is TomBoy built upon Mono? I've used it - it's a terrible unusable bit of software that acts entirely counter-intuitively for taking notes, with a GUI that is neither compact or usable for managing the notes.

Someone could rewrite it in native GTK/Gnome/SQLite in a few days I'm sure.

Seriously, the old "note dock" applet for WindowMaker was better, and that was 12 years ago.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (4, Informative)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334615)

Look for GNotes. It is Tomboy ported to C++. That has annoyed to Tomboy developers....

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (3, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334901)

Cheers. I see no reason therefore to include Tomboy + Mono by default with Gnome on Debian - or do other parts of Gnome depend upon Mono now?

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (4, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334923)

Gnote is a line by line clone of Tomboy from C# to C++. Even the GUI is exactly the same. Don't believe me? See the screenshots at http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/ [wordpress.com] So his complaints would all be still valid, unless he's biased against mono.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (5, Insightful)

suffix tree monkey (1430749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334579)

Indeed, that is my problem with Mono (or C#, for that matter) as well. We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design. C# is only good for writing code blazingly fast. Which is kind of silly to me, because as a semi-experienced programmer, I know that writing code is the easier part of software development.

So yeah, the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets. However, most people with enough RAM just 'meh' it out, after all, there is no such thing as Page's Law [wikipedia.org] , right?

But it's not just Microsoft's products that bloat Debian. My personal windmills are applications like HAL, D-BUS, any gnome-*-daemon, any {Policy,Device,Console}Kit and so on. By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.

(I get agitated when software bloat is discussed, I know.)

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334695)

We can't expect small, lean applications written in C# because of the language's design.

That's amusing since I've written many applications in C# that are small and lean. I've ported a number of applications to C# that have a compiled binary that is usually no more than 10-15% larger than the C/C++ program. But no, it must be the language's fault not the incompetent programmers using it because clearly no one can write bloated, memory-hungry, slow C or C++ applications. Oh wait...

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (-1, Flamebait)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334907)

The most positive description I could give a C# "application" is quick and dirty. I put application in quotes because calling something written in a scripting language anything other than a script, IMHO, is annoying. The fact that the script needs to be accompanied by so much extra baggage, mono, it can not be considered small or lean. When the extra baggage becomes small or lean then you might convince me your "application" is too.

I completely agree with you pointing out c/c++ applications can be bloated and memory-hungry. One of the worst C++ applications ever built comes to mind. The Windows desktop.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334971)

The most positive description I could give a C# "application" is quick and dirty.

Then you don't use it much. This is what most people say that have nothing but a cursory glance at the language or have never actually used it.

I put application in quotes because calling something written in a scripting language anything other than a script, IMHO, is annoying.

C# isn't a scripting language. You clearly don't know what a scripting language is to make such a laughable statement.

The fact that the script needs to be accompanied by so much extra baggage, mono, it can not be considered small or lean.

Because no C/C++ application is accompanied by extra baggage? I guess I must be dreaming every time I download one of them and have to download 5-10+ megs of dependencies when I apt-get one.

People are still on dial-up (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334719)

the more Mono/C# apps we get into Debian, the slower and memory-hungry (and disk-hungry, but I find that a non-issue in general) it gets.

Disk-hungry implies bandwidth-hungry. If you "find that a non-issue in general", you must not have friends or family who live in an area that doesn't have high-speed home Internet access.

By the way, a useful hint - when a developer can't think of an original name and prefers to rip-off a name trendy at that time, expect the code to be as well thought-out as Nuka Cola Cherry.

And when app maintainers do think up an original name, such as "Karbon14" or "Sodipodi" or "Amarok" or "Totem", they get bitched at for not coming up with a name that suggests to newbies what the program does.

Re:Incredible horrifying bloat (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334597)

"bloat" - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

.NET is an ENTIRE platform. You likely could have a whole system where this is the only accessible API. Just like Java. Would you fault, say uTorrent, for having 40 megs of win32 dependencies?

This is the unfortunate case of a .NET application being apparently the only one in the core system, so it gets all of the weight of the dependency on Mono. However, when a few thousand applications in the system are .NET, that kind of a dependency is not even a second thought.

Looks more like Sid (3, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334437)

The commit was done on Debian unstable, which is Sid, not Squeeze.

Re:Looks more like Sid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334521)

Sid will become squeeze when squeeze is released. The commit was made to sid with the intent of having it be a part of the final squeeze release.

It's like saying "The next Firefox release will have feature X", and you replying with "That feature is in the beta, not the final release."

What the F... (5, Informative)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334443)

Am I missing something?

I've been using Debian for ..... 8+ years, since 2001, and I've NEVER heard anything about "GNOME" being in the "default" install. Anything resembling a "default" install would be the the Debian base system, which includes things like basic system files, core-utils, bash, pam, etc. Anything else is installed explicitly by the user (yes, installers make it easier, but still you need to choose the option). There are thousands of Debian desktop users who have no GNOME installed, and are either using KDE, or some other desktop environment.

Besides, isn't "tomboy" already included in the GNOME of Debian Lenny (the current stable release)? At least when I did an "apt-get install gnome" yesterday (source list pointing to lenny), it installed tomboy for me, together with the EVIL EVIL mono etc. And Debian has included mono as part of its repository for years. If it had licensing/patent concerns, there wouldn't be any difference whether it was in the "default GNOME" installation or not.

Argh.

Re:What the F... (5, Insightful)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334503)

PS: From TFA (I confess not having read it in full before typing the above rant ... I did read TFA.... just not in detail ;-p)

The news got out via a blog post by Debian maintainer Robert Millan, who maintains the Gnote package for Debian - Gnote is a non-Mono replacement for Tomboy written in C++.

In other words, it's a non-story about two maintainers trying to get their packages accepted into the "default" installation (from TFA it sounds like it's an issue of what to include in the first CD). Yeah, raise patent concerns, size concerns, blah blah blah blah, but it all boils down to ego stroking and comparing dick sizes.

Duh.

Re:What the F... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334983)

PS: From TFA (I confess not having read it in full before typing the above rant ... I did read TFA.... just not in detail ;-p)

The news got out via a blog post by Debian maintainer Robert Millan, who maintains the Gnote package for Debian - Gnote is a non-Mono replacement for Tomboy written in C++.

In other words, it's a non-story about two maintainers trying to get their packages accepted into the "default" installation (from TFA it sounds like it's an issue of what to include in the first CD). Yeah, raise patent concerns, size concerns, blah blah blah blah, but it all boils down to ego stroking and comparing dick sizes.

Duh.

Gnote is not just a non-Mono replacement of Tomboy, it's a line by line ripoff of Tomboy's C# code to C++ and GUI design. See http://robertmh.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/mono-in-the-default-install/ [wordpress.com] for screenshots. And the developers of Tomboy are not happy.

Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience. Tomboy is not going away, and it will continue to be developed on the extremely productive Mono/GTK# language platform. Anyone thinking about distributing Gnote should consider the impact on users and their data. When we develop, we should always be asking ourselves, "is this adding value for our users?"

Of course, it's under GPL so Gnote is within it's rights, but there's a thing called professional courtesy and respecting a developer's wishes.

Re:What the F... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335069)

Edit: Tomboy is under LGPL.

Re:What the F... (1)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334601)

Am I missing something?

I've been using Debian for ..... 8+ years, since 2001, and I've NEVER heard anything about "GNOME" being in the "default" install. Anything resembling a "default" install would be the the Debian base system, which includes things like basic system files, core-utils, bash, pam, etc.

If one installs, via tasksel, the "desktop" environment, GNOME is installed by default. One can certainly install another window manager/desktop environment, but unless one specifies another wm/de, one gets GNOME. From the Debian wiki: "You could simply mark the Desktop environment option. It will install the packages for Gnome and some packages that are considered "standard" for a Debian desktop." (http://wiki.debian.org/tasksel) It is in this sense that GNOME is in the "default" install.

Re:What the F... (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334933)

Incidentally, I've been using debian for about five years now and this behavior the last year or so to increase the number of packages included in "gnome" or "kde" meta-packages is a little annoying. The reason is that I might want gnome or kde, but I don't want all a full-blown desktop environment because it's bloated and has a whole bunch of stuff I don't need. I don't even know what tomboy or mono is, let alone use them, why would I want to install them by default? I wish they'd differentiate between a package that just installs gnome and then have another meta-package that includes all this other stuff that is no doubt helpful for some people, but not wanted in my case.

As it is, with a new install I have to install a default, bare-bones installation and then install everything else by hand. So for kde, I install kde-base, kde-libs, kde-multimedia, etc. It's not that it's impossible to deal with this way, but for a user like me, when I think of "gnome" I think of gnome itself and not gnome + tomboy + mono + lots of other apps and utilities, etc. but I guess I'm in the minority.

Re:What the F... (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335011)

I think the submitter default desktop install. During the install you can have a "desktop environment", which will be Gnome with TomBoy.

Re:What the F... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335041)

There are thousands of Debian desktop users who have no GNOME installed

I would wager that there are millions - if you count the Debian derivatives, like Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Xandros, Knoppix.... there must be at least a couple million non-Gnome Debian users.

An interesting read on the subject (3, Insightful)

Dotren (1449427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334481)

Not really being much of a Linux person myself yet, I was curious about the negative feelings I've read about for Mono, ranging from general dislike to outright hate, as I've had several people tell me that Mono is actually really cool and easy to use if you're used to doing .Net programing in general. Malevolentjelly posted this link a few days back in the Silverlight 3 post and I found it very informative:

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ [apebox.org]

Re:An interesting read on the subject (3, Insightful)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334589)

C# is very good language, though not perfect, which builds on many of the good innovations of Java while eliminating many of the issues that I've always had with Java. The reason why there are so many negative feelings is because this is a Microsoft technology and nothing more. If Microsoft had originated the specification of ANSI C exactly as it is today, for example, you would hear constantly all the same outcries about how crappy it was, etc etc.

Re:An interesting read on the subject (2, Insightful)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334725)

reetardo Jones doesn't get the reason for the negative feelings about mono at all. They originated because of the way mono is conceived to lure Linux developers into using software whose api is completely controlled by Microsoft but without its blessing. Once too many Linux packages depend on mono, I'm sure we'll get some patent/copyright saber-rattling from Microsoft.

Then there's the technical aspect that mono will always be running behing the microsoft C#/CLI version, and so your Linux mono application will generally not even run on Windows, or if it's running will be unappealing because it feels old to the MS user. Windows platform cli application almost never run on Linux, so that's not an advantage either.

So all in all we have here a technology that is offering nothing much, for a great future risk. No wonder we avoid it like Pfeiffers disease (or mononucleosis).

If one wants to develop great crossplatform apps, use Qt [qtsoftware.com] , it has all and more of the advantages, and none of the risks.

Re:An interesting read on the subject (3, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334811)

They originated because of the way mono is conceived to lure Linux developers into using software whose api is completely controlled by Microsoft but without its blessing.

Yeah, so much of a lack of a blessing that it's provided the Mono developers with specifications for .NET/C#/Silverlight and its engineers have directly collaborated with the Mono developers. I'm pretty sure if you weren't giving your blessing that you wouldn't allow your engineers to collaborate with the project.

Once too many Linux packages depend on mono, I'm sure we'll get some patent/copyright saber-rattling from Microsoft.

So you claim, but we've been hearing that for 5 years now and the sky hasn't fallen yet Chicken Little.

Then there's the technical aspect that mono will always be running behing the microsoft C#/CLI version, and so your Linux mono application will generally not even run on Windows or if it's running will be unappealing because it feels old to the MS user.

This is bullshit. Every app I've written against Mono that doesn't use any of their extensions has run perfectly on .NET on Windows. Just so you know, Mono supports pretty much all of the important parts of .NET 3.5 so I don't know where you are pulling this shit from.

Re:An interesting read on the subject (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334973)

Then there's the technical aspect that mono will always be running behing the microsoft C#/CLI version, and so your Linux mono application will generally not even run on Windows, or if it's running will be unappealing because it feels old to the MS user. Windows platform cli application almost never run on Linux, so that's not an advantage either.

Surely it would be the other way around? Microsoft are extremely good at backwards compatibilty, and futhermore they haven't ditched the older versions of the .Net Framework any way, so something targetted for 1.0 or 1.1 will still run, even though they're working on newer versions. It's the Linux world where backwards compatibility is constantly being broken. As for appearance, the Mono team have chosen not to implement Windows.Forms (for obvious reasons), so that will be a bigger issue than running on an older version of the framework.

Re:An interesting read on the subject (4, Insightful)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334873)

The problem is that Microsoft has an extremely bad reputation. We expect them to do absolutely everything they think could be to their advantage because, well, that's how they behaved in the past - even going as far as subverting ISO to get their document format declared a standard.

As long as Microsoft retains any control over .NET I won't feel safe around the platform simply because they could decide to screw over everyone at any time and given their past behavior I expect them to.

Whatever Microsoft comes up with, it's either a fully integrated part of their software stack or too hot to get involved with. I don't want to get caught in the fallout of a patent lawsuit. That sounds paranoid but, well, Microsoft's actions so far have been fairly consistent.

Re:An interesting read on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334943)

Of the static VM languages, Mono C# is favored by the C++ type of programmer. C# includes all kinds of things that hide what is really going on, but make the code more less wordsy.

Java is favored by the C crowd since like C you can look at any piece of code and know exactly what it is doing; there might be some #define but after a simple substitution you get the actual code. There's no automatic type conversions, no methods being defined in multiple files, no overloading, no 'copy constructors' or any other magic.

So basically you have a normal C vs C++ type schism over mono in addition to it being 'tainted' by being based on Microsoft. A double-whammy. Plus the fact that it takes a 50mb runtime to make a program that does post-it notes and that it's barely faster than LuaJIT doesn't help...

Re:An interesting read on the subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28335029)

  • "Mono is not the result of any deals between Novell and Microsoft. " but it is explicitly affected by them. Novell bought Mono then MS bought Novell's good will.
  • Pushing Mono in the default risks making OIN waste a lot of money defending against MS in a case they can certainly win. As MS holds patents for this technology some of which are not covered by any of their promises not to sue. After OIN dies a terrible die for defending this Mono tantrum, all the other OIN-protected projects will be at risk. Great.
  • Still no way to get any Royalty-free license, regardles of what Jo claims.

"GREAT APPS" none of which are really needed. Everybody who is used to good desktop photo software hates F-spot just as much as g-thumb. Some people like tomboy but they couldn't differentiate it from g-note. Rhythmbox is acclaimed the second best music libray player, just after Amarok (which regardles of the WE WANT GREAT APPS mantra, is not in the ubuntu default, odd?) Banshee is still, far , far, far ,fAR aways. For some reason Jo just forgets about the GREAT APPS mantra when he pushes Banshee out of a mythical package size argument! Of course, just dumping Mono altogether and replacing F-spot with gthumb and tomboy with gnote would boost freaking tens of megabytes, unlike the mere 6 MB that replacing Rhythmbox with Banshee would. What's worse are the attempts to smear against Rhythmbox development when it didn't stop: more info [wordpress.com]

Slow news day (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334499)

Seriously nobody gives a shit, the Mono fear has been proven stupid by now.

Re:Slow news day (3, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334581)

Proven? Really? What's the proof? That Microsoft hasn't sued yet? That doesn't stop them from suing in the future. I'm not aware of any 'proof' that the Mono fear is stupid. If anything, I used to not be too worried about Mono, until Microsoft sued TomTom for their use of Linux. That was NOT a lawsuit over Mono, but rather over VFAT and some other stuff. But, it proved that Microsoft is willing to use stupid patents to sue Linux users. So, now I'm worried that in the future, they will decide to sue over Mono. What would stop them if they should decide to sue?

Re:Slow news day (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334641)

So how many more years of them not suing anyone over Mono is it going to take before you people finally calm down and shut the fuck up? We've heard for 5 years this constant drumbeat that Microsoft is always around the corner waiting to sue people for Mono and none of you Chicken Littles have been right. Seriously, Microsoft deserves criticism for many things they have done in the past, but they have done right by this and have been about as open and willing to work with the FOSS community on Mono as one can really expect from a company like this.

Re:Slow news day (1)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334951)

So how many more years of them not suing anyone over Mono is it going to take before you people finally calm down and shut the fuck up? We've heard for 5 years this constant drumbeat that Microsoft is always around the corner waiting to sue people for Mono and none of you Chicken Littles have been right. Seriously, Microsoft deserves criticism for many things they have done in the past, but they have done right by this and have been about as open and willing to work with the FOSS community on Mono as one can really expect from a company like this.

When Microsoft offer an unlimited patent covenant for all distributors of Linux software, people will stop complaining about it overnight.

Re:Slow news day (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334989)

When Microsoft offer an unlimited patent covenant for all distributors of Linux software, people will stop complaining about it overnight.

Then maybe those other distros need to go talk to Microsoft and secure themselves a covenant like Novell did.

Re:Slow news day (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335031)

Just because they haven't been up to this specific case of scumbaggery doesn't mean they haven't been scumbagging the last couple years. They're scumbags; they keep demonstrating that. It's somewhat reasonable to expect further scumbaggery from them in the future.

Plus, it took them ages to start suing over VFAT. That still didn't help TomTom. Any concerns over .NET/Mono may be unsubstantiated but we could only tell if we knew exactly how Microsoft is going to act over the next couple years. Since I'm not aware of any decent psychics in the F/OSS scene all we can do is make assumptions.
You assume that sine they haven't sued anyone over Mono yet they won't do it in the future. I assume that since they habitually use morally questionable tactics they're likely to weaponize the .NET patents in the future. I have no idea who of us is going to end up being right so I err on the side of caution and stay away from .NET as a development platform and from Mono in general.

Estoppel (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334775)

What's the proof? That Microsoft hasn't sued yet? That doesn't stop them from suing in the future.

There is a "use it or lose it" doctrine at equity, called estoppel by acquiescence [wikipedia.org] or laches [wikipedia.org] . (And it's not just for trademarks.)

Victory for Free Software Advocates (-1, Flamebait)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334561)

This is a victory for Free Software advocates over Free Software zealots. Congrats to the debian team for doing the right thing, even if it might be unpopular with the crazies.

Re:Victory for Free Software Advocates (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334607)

I don't see how this wins anyone anything.

Another good reason to use KDE (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334605)

GNOME folks are really pushing the adoption of KDE 4 nowadays.
It is great to see so much friendship between open-source projects :)

50 MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334651)

The last time someone came up with accurate figures, it was a 10 MB difference between including GNote and Tomboy.

When taking a stand... (1)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334667)

When taking a stand towards something, I find it sometimes useful to look at the people being very for or against. Viewing some of the comments from anti Mono people like this [theopensourcerer.com] , makes in itself a good case for being sceptical towards the anti crowd in this case.

To me, GNU/Linux is not a handful of fledgling arms and tinfoil hats, and that is excactly what I see from a lot of the anti Mono people.

what a troll (5, Informative)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334687)

Apparently, Debian doesn't have the same concerns over using specifications patented by Microsoft and licensed under undisclosed terms

Microsoft has filed a patent on the .NET APIs, but Tomboy (and most Mono applications) don't use the .NET APIs, they use the ECMA APIs and standard Linux APIs. Mono is no different in that way from Python, Ruby, Perl, or many other languages people commonly use on Linux: it uses proprietary APIs on Windows, and open source APIs on Linux.

Furthermore, Mono is way ahead of languages like Java in that regard because, unlike Java, Mono is based on an open standard and there are no known patents on the language core or core libraries.

If anybody can point to an actual patent that Mono or Tomboy violate, please file an issue report against the Mono project; if it is credible, the infringing functionality will be removed from Mono. So far, nobody has been able to come up with anything.

Try Gnote instead of Tomboy (4, Informative)

Laven (102436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334691)

Have you tried gnote yet? It is a C++ reimplementation of tomboy. gnote's binary package itself is less than 4MB with only a few standard dependencies that you might already have on a GNOME desktop, significantly smaller than Mono. I made the switch fully from tomboy to gnote a few months ago and things are working very nicely.

Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy (1)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334827)

Last I read, Gnote doesn't have the same feature set as Tomboy, so that might have an impact on the size of the thing, although you're already comapring apples to oranges when you add in Tomboy deps with the install size. Also, the amount of disk space an app uses doesn't really tell you anything about how much other resources it actually uses. Some anecdotal evidence for the ricers out there: I have Tomboy running all of the time, and there is no difference in battery life with Tomboy running or not. That gives some idea that this is not a power sucking devil of an application it is made out to be.

Re:Try Gnote instead of Tomboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28335057)

Gnote is a nice port, but what about a port of F-Spot?

Red hat/Fedora improve, Debian/deb-based regress (2, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334817)

With Red hat/Fedora dropping Mono out of the gnome dependencies, and ubuntu and it seems even debian stick to their Mono ways. And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very, very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software. I guess I will have to change my current ways and just move to .rpm based Fedora. It's been a long time without red hat, shall be fun. "Let's all make gnome depend on MS technology just so we have a desktop widget that has already been ported to native code!" That's great...

Re:Red hat/Fedora improve, Debian/deb-based regres (1)

PhrkOnLsh (1567187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335067)

And ubuntu even threatening their users to install a lower quality Mono-dependent music player to replace Rhythmbox just because the Mono zealots are very, very loud about how they want to push this MS technology on everybody using free software.

Almost as loud as the people opposed to "MS technology," developed before Microsoft had anything to do with Novell or any other GNU/Linux.

I like bashing Microsoft as much as the next guy, but only when it's necessary. If anyone on /. actually kept up with the Debian blogosphere and Planet Debian, they'd see that there are two sides to every issue, and those sides aren't always political.

http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/?p=124 [apebox.org] http://np237.livejournal.com/24065.html [livejournal.com] http://robertmh.wordpress.com/?p=12 [wordpress.com] "These are *APPLICATIONS* and forcing me to install them is, to my mind, antithetical to the open source ideal." "Evolution serves no useful purpose in today's world" Altogether, this whole argument just goes to show that users, even GNU/Linux users can be grossly uneducated on topics, hearing Microsoft, and jumping on the attack. We should mysteriously drop F-Spot and GnomeDo and Evolution and see how these morons react.

Wrong. (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28334935)

> Mono Squeezed Into Debian Default Installation

It is not going into the Debian default installation. The Debian default installation does not include any "desktop environment". It is going into the Gnome "desktop".

Microsoft's trojan horse into Open-Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28334965)

This debate seem to stem from a fear that this is Microsoft's trojan horse that's going to sneak it's way into open-source and blow it up with frivolous patent suits. Never mind that Microsoft has started licensing more and more programs (more) openly specifically to help the Mono platform. There are plenty of other problems with other vague patents granted in the US in use by open-source today. But they aren't getting as much attention.

There are plenty of good arguments against bloat and the quality of the programs depending on Mono. But this patent rational isn't one.

It's not even the entire framework that's affected by patents. Only a few parts. The worst that could happen would be that a few non-essential programs would have to be tweaked.

Now, as I see it. This is Open-Source's trojan horse into a huge community of commercial .NET developers that are ever more embracing open-source software.

Mono is the best way to let Windows developers transition into open-source environments.

As a .NET developer & a Linux user (0, Redundant)

BlueScreenOfTOM (939766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28335093)

...I'm very excited by this. I've been using Mono in Linux and OS X for a long time now and it has been working great. I'm not sure what Microsoft will think of this, but from what I've read thus far (which is admittedly not a ton) they haven't been getting in Mono's way... in fact, I believe that they gave information to help the Mono project so that it could be leveraged for Silverlight.

Who knows what Microsoft is going to do in the future, but for now I'm excited for Mono.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>