09.04.09
Unrest in OpenSUSE Grows, Mono Faces Opposition Also
Summary: People of OpenSUSE see need for change, Mono criticism carries on
AS OpenSUSE support continues to diminish and releases are made less frequent, key departures are noted [1, 2] and layoffs too. Concerns are now being publicly raised in the OpenSUSE mailing lists and then deflected to another mailing list. The original message says:
WARNING (This is my honest view/perception and is not politically correct)
1. Many small business owners/small companies feel there is a lack of attention to their needs from Novell. That is to say Novell only listens to “Monster Enterprise Clients”
Solution: We form a group that combined has equivelant $$$ behind it to warrent attention.
2. Many resent replies from Novell people (although it is just their opinion) through the various mediums treat SMB’s and their staff as idiots. It comes off as if it comes from arrogant 20-something know it alls dictating what the community has to do. To quote some CEO’s and COO… “The SUSE/Novell people act like a bunch arrogant 20-something … that treat us and are staff like idiots.) SMB’s have to contribute more time/money/resources to keep openSUSE going. (Why should we when we are treated like idiots)?
Solution: Better communitcation. Some signs of improvement, but a strong feeling of being dictated, rather than lead”
Heise has already taken notice of this, being a publication which is close to SUSE much like its audience.
The reduction of the support duration for openSUSE from 24 to 18 months has sparked a discussion among the openSUSE community about a free SUSE Linux version with long-term support.
This puts even greater pressure on Novell, whose security seems to be wobbly according to this new report.
An ongoing phishing attack against UK taxpayers is being given additional credibility by using a gov.uk domain. Sefton Council is hosting the phishing content on its Novel GroupWise 7.0 site at web11.sefton.gov.uk.
There are no similar reports elsewhere.
Regardless of the perils which OpenSUSE is facing, Mono development is going strong at Novell, despite the obvious problems it will pose to everyone but Novell and Microsoft. GreyGeek writes an excellent summary of the situation, part of which goes as follows:
To make matters worse, the Ubuntu Technology Board voted on June 30, 2009 to make the Ubuntu desktop remix DEPENDENT on MONO! Since MONO is a clone of .NET, and .NET is owned and controlled by Microsoft, that means that Microsoft will, directly or indirectly, control the Ubuntu desktop in future releases, unless the UTB comes to its senses and reverses itself. Now, consider this: GNOME is built using C and the GTK+ API, and compiled with gcc. MONO (.NET) has it’s own API and GUI dialog frameworks, and is written using C#. There is NO NEED for GTK+ if GNOME because dependent on MONO. Expect the Ubuntu Technical Board, after a “reasonable” period of time to allow MONO based GUIs and utilities to gradually replace GTK+ counterparts, to announce that it is removing the GTK+ toolkit to “save room” on the ISO. That is the same reason it used to remove GIMP from the ISO in favor of MONO.
So, the Ubuntu Linux user doesn’t have to install SAMBA to have a fully functional desktop. Currently, if the Linux user removes the files dependent on libmono* it will disable only half a dozen applications, none critical to Linux. HOWEVER, when GNOME becomes dependent on MONO one will NOT be able to remove MONO without making GNOME inoperable.
“GreyGeek’s response is here,” tells us a reader (via E-mail), who adds that “IMHO, pretty well sums up why Mono is not a good thing and gives me even more reasons to not use any of the *buntus.” GreyGeek has also written about the personal attacks I’ve been receiving, with Jose_X adding his own point of view. Generally speaking, the pattern at Microsoft/Mono’s side of things remains one of suppression and cyber-bullying. Jason has called it “pro-Mono zealotry”; neither users nor developers actually want Mono. █
“The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps for us.
“Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are patented. Indeed, there’s no way to avoid this danger. But that’s no reason to put our head inside Microsoft’s jaws.”
