06.12.09
IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: June 12th, 2009
To use your own IRC client, join channel #boycottnovell in FreeNode.
Permalink
Comments off 
Send this to a friend
“Mark Fink” Has Nothing to Do With Us
What began as a rude message to the Ubuntu mailing lists — improperly associating part of the discussion with this Web site (or at least that’s what some people thought) — has developed into some abhorrent personal attacks from “Mark Fink”. The poster then lied by claiming that Boycott Novell (or me personally) had something to do with it. This is a lie. There is nothing connecting the two other than the fact that one person, “Mark Fink”, may be reading this site. I only attempted to approach “Mark Fink” for the first time after he had attacked an innocent person (I tried to mention this gently and not lead “Mark Fink” to attacking us too). He later lied about me by claiming that I was responsible for all this. This is totally made up. It’s outrageous. He may have tried to cause unnecessary confrontations (there is a lot of confused E-mail correspondence going on).
The whole thing achieves nothing but cause a lot of people a lot of trouble. It also raises tension and wastes people’s time. I have been truthful about it all along.
One has to wonder if all that disruption in the Ubuntu mailing lists was actually intended to incite people and make this Web site look bad.
What was actually more repulsive were the attempts to characterise this as a setup. There was none. It is one man picking a bone with Ubuntu or Mono — rudely and independently.
Why is it that it’s impossible to just peacefully write about the topics that matter without all these repeated aggravations? Is it intended to lead contributors to fatigue? If so, it’s not going to work. Considering the very sharp rise in trolling, this could all be related, but we cope with it. █
Permalink
Comments off Send this to a friend
Smears Against Boycott Novell
Summary: Dispelling and exposing the FUD tactics where trolls get treated as spokesmen (or spokeswomen) of this Web site
A LOT OF Internet trolls have been attacking our Web site via comments and IRC recently. Some weeks ago, DDoS attacks began as well (they still return occasionally, the last time being 3 days ago) and there is personal abuse. But the last thing we need is people spreading criminal accusations against us, so here are some urgent clarifications.
Jo Shields, the Mono packager from Debian and Ubuntu, has just had Linux Today publish a guest post. We won’t delve into the details, but there are some serious smears against our site in there. To give examples, Shields says:
“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)
What???
It says “see comments”, but there is no link. Which one among ~20,000 comments would it be? Who said such a thing? There is nothing there but the cold insinuation that we are some kind of a site that wants to kill people.
Nice, eh?
Shields carries on by saying that we are “trying to have people who make positive comments about Mono fired (see recent comments on Ubuntu mailing lists)…”
That has absolutely nothing to do with us. For those who have not been following this, someone who chose to link to our site caused a big mess in the Ubuntu mailing lists and now we are getting accused of being responsible. Why? Because the poster linked to our site as source/proof. We were also seen as accountable for Boycott Novell protests in India — ones which we didn’t even know about after they had happened.
“There is nothing there but the cold insinuation that we are some kind of a site that wants to kill people.”We quickly addressed this issue last night (upon the request of a victim) and since there have been lot more issues with IRC logs recently (sites that hate us sending anonymous trolls to fill the logs with hateful, nauseating, racist garbage), it then serves as weapon against ‘us’ (trolls who enter the IRC channel) which they themselves plant through feedback mechanisms. In a ways, voices are being hijacked. We have reasons to believe that it’s this type of behaviour that led Bruce Perens to closing down his good Web site, Technocrat.
As one of our readers points out, Winston Churchill once said: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” But we — and by “we” it’s reasonable to refer to editorship — never “called for the deaths of Microsoft employees.” And if Mono folks, or supposedly one who represents them in this case, descend to such disgusting unsubstantiated accusations, then where to go from here? Shields’ last comment in this Web site said: “Fuck it, and fuck you.” I did not do anything to provoke such language, but this is the stuff we need to deal with for daring to write critically about Mono. █
“It’s [Windows is] an operating system, not a religion.”
–Ted Waitt, then CEO of Gateway.
Evidence of Defunct Patent System: Daily Links
Summary: New stories that highlight problems with intellectual monopolies
Death/Morality
• Another Example Of Patents Putting Lives At Risk
Given that Shafer refused to live up to the terms of the deal that he had never agreed to in the first place, ABL moved forward and sued Shafer directly, and that case is now ongoing — even as Shafer hopes to invalidate the patent through the Patent Office itself. The whole thing is yet another story of how patents are being used to stifle innovation — and sometimes put lives at risk. It’s tragic that we’ve been seeing so many such stories lately.
• “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”: A LIBERTARIAN CRITIQUE [PDF]
Fashion
• Fashion Industry Repeats Software’s Mistakes
Software patents are stupid on both theoretical and practical grounds. Since software is just algorithms – that is, maths – software patents are intellectual monopolies on pure knowledge. Practically, they make coding almost impossible, since software patents have been given for so many trivial and common programming techniques.
Business Methods
• Canadian Patent Appeal Board Rules Against Business Method Patents
• Canadian Patent Office Rejects Software And Business Model Patents
Photo-Sharing
• Patent-Litigation Weekly: The Photo-Sharing Files
Creating and sharing images—drawings, paintings, photographs—are among the most ancient of human activities, and throughout history, technology that makes that sharing possible has been embraced as rapidly as it appears. Today, that technology takes the form of software applications for computers and cell phones.
That all helps explain why the collection of scrappy entrepreneurs who run small and medium-sized photo-sharing companies didn’t always think about patents as they built up their businesses.
Web Sites
• Do Patents On Your Website Make You Liable For False Marking?
One of the things that tends to keep patent lawsuits in check between two larger competing companies is the “patent nuclear war” scenario — which is that if one company sues the other for patent infringement, the latter company often can hit back with an equal number of infringement charges. Thus, the incentives are for companies to stockpile lots of patents, but not necessarily use them… though it does happen occasionally.
Hardware
• Flash memory patent litigation impacts bottom lines
The recent cross-license agreement with Samsung, noted in the article of interest, includes four-bit-per cell technology, which is a critical element for building enterprise servers using high density solid state disk drives and will keep SanDisk profitable over the next 7 years.
• Rambus drops (some) Nvidia allegations
Rambus is dropping allegations against Nvidia relating to four of nine patents the IP chip firm claims are being infringed by GeForce graphics processors and nForce chipsets.
China
• China plans for 50% increase in number of patent agents
China’s State Intellectual Property Office has formulated a Plan for the Development of the Patent Agency Industry (2009-2015). Although I cannot find a copy of the plan – which I guess is published only in Chinese – one of its central planks is that by 2015 there should be 10,000 practising patent agents in China, up from the 6,000 that currently operate.
This this not contravene China’s obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs): Articles 7 and 8 TRIPs, taken together may provide, “a basis for seeking waivers to meet unforeseen conditions of hardship,” J.H. Reichman, The TRIPs Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries, 32 Case W. Res. J. International Law, 2000, pp. 441 and 461.
Permalink
Comments off Send this to a friend
Microsoft and ODF: “Not Just Beer”
Microsoft wants to talk about it over some booze (c/f schmoozing)
Teaser: Guess what conference is attended by pro-Microsoft folks who have been publicly attacking ODF along with friends at Microsoft?
“Not just beer,” called it one of our readers, who made interesting observations about Microsoft’s intrinsic behaviour.
“It could be useful to have some comments on freedom by high-impact political philosophers from various regions and eras. It would put into context what Microsoft folks are doing.”
Samuel Adams once argued, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
“They’re really trying to build out that 5th column,” says our reader.
“My beer reference was a bit on the free-as-in-speech v free-as-in-beer theme, but also left the possibility to comment that maybe Samuel Adams, the beer, is more well known nowadays than its namesake the political philosopher. If you think of the impact his words have on western civilization, it’s quite a big deal.
“My beer reference was a bit on the free-as-in-speech v free-as-in-beer theme, but also left the possibility to comment that maybe Samuel Adams, the beer, is more well known nowadays than its namesake the political philosopher.”
–Anonymous“If you think about how much communication is electronic, then control of that communication becomes control of the population. A lot of freedoms that generations fought, killed and died for, especially during the 1700′s, have been taken for granted and subsequently abridged under the disguise of ‘technology’. The threat the Microsoft movement poses for all computer-using businesses is obvious enough, bottlenecks and gatekeepers are barriers. However, the same bottlenecks and gatekeepers are also equally or moreso a threat to basic democracy.
“Just look at how ineffective e-mail has become during the last 5 years because of Microsoft Exchange’s failure rate combined with 90% of mail traffic being spam churned out by insecurable Windows machines.”
Looking around at ways by which Microsoft controls means of communication using proprietary document formats, we find that Microsoft keeps busy trying to destroy the new standard, ODF. Dennis E. Hamilton is now speaking to the Microsoft promoter Jesper Lund Stocholm, telling him that “It is not possible to change IPR Mode without shutting down the ODF TC and chartering a new one. Not practical.”
Why is Microsoft even bringing up such a subject? Because it holds software patents that can harm ODF [1, 2, 3, 4] and OASIS takes preventive measures?
Other Microsoft figures who defend Microsoft’s attack on ODF interoperability [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] are being discussed in the comments here. One comment reads (regarding remarks from Alex Brown):
So in others words, I get from this guy the following;
Microsoft can expend a great deal of energy bastardizing existing standards from any area, such as ISO, or defacto ones, like oh I don’t know, kerberos. Thus making such standards that;
a. works only with their stuff.
b. works partially with the existing standards everyone else uses.or
c. works with existing standards only if you jump through who knows how many hoops.
Yet, they, Microsoft cannot after expending all the effort on the above, finds it impossible writing to a standard or adhering to its spirit?
Hmm, it surely must be my imagination because there does seem to be an awful lot of ODF bashing lately.
So we have Jesper Lund Stocholm, Alex Brown, and who else is missing from this typical list of ODF offenders? Well, there is a Dutch ODF conference at the moment and it is attended by Microsoft-friendly folks who have been publicly attacking ODF along with prominent friends at Microsoft.
Judging by the heading which says “not just beer”, it was curious to find this.
One of the motors of the anti-ODF whisper campaign still pretends that he belongs in an ODF event. He just wants to go for beers, he claims. We are acutely familiar with this pattern.
People’s memory span is not as short as he wants it to be [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. He is there to cause trouble and help Microsoft.
Regarding Microsoft’s latest attacks on ODF, GreyGeek writes:
And you say Microsoft doesn’t lie?
Read the article and see the evidence for yourself.
Another person writes about the “New kinder Microsoft”:
Anyone that thinks that Microsoft is a friend of FOSS should pay very careful attention to what they are doing with ODF.
The new Microsoft is a worse version of the old Microsoft.
It ought to be added that Novell is helping Microsoft here. This morning I received the following message:
Le Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:17 +0200, "Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@laposte.net> a écrit : > > > > > > Hello Michael, > > > > > > Le Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:11:57 +0200, > > Per Eriksson <pereriksson@openoffice.org> a écrit : > > >> > > >> > > Hi Michael, >> > > >> > > Michael Meeks skrev: >>> > > > Not at all. All our OO.o changes are available under the >>> > > > terms of the LGPLv3, and we would be more than pleased for Sun to >>> > > > accept them under the terms of the project license. >>> > > > >>> > > > Sadly they refuse to do so, without Sun owning the code. >>> > > > We're eager for a truly independent & representative foundation to >>> > > > own the code, but not Sun - cf. flamewars ad nauseum on this >>> > > > topic :- >> > > >> > > Thanks for the reply. It wasn't meant to be rude. > > > > > > That's awesome news, Michael; does this mean that the custom filter > > for OOXML developed by Novell and Microsoft will be under LGPL v3? > > Did you put the mono stack and Silverlight under LGPL v3?
Novell is on Microsoft’s side. That’s why it helped OOXML, as well. █
In Fedora, Tomboy and Banshee Depend on Winforms
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Summary: Banshee brings Winforms with it after all (not part of ECMA reference)
ONE of our contributors mailed us regarding this post where we were vilified for suggesting that Banshee needed Winforms. Well, our contributor says that “it’s true that Ubuntu’s implementation of Banshee does not depend on Winforms, but on Fedora 11 it does. So does Tomboy. At least, when I try and install tomboy or banshee, they both want to pull in winforms.
“Whether it is actually needed by either application I’m not sure, but even though Red Hat is shipping Fedora 11 without Tomboy installing it will pull in Windows forms by default when users install it. Whether this is actually a problem or not, I can’t say.”
Those examples we were given (as above) can be proven as follows.
For Bashee:
Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package banshee.i586 0:1.4.3-3.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gdk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(notify-sharp) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus.GLib) = 1.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Cairo) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Boo.Lang.Compiler) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(pango-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(MusicBrainz) = 1.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Data.SqliteClient) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Xml) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glib-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Web) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins) = 0.4.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Posix) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gtk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 2.84.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Data) = 2.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glade-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Zeroconf) = 2.0.0.76 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus) = 1.0.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: banshee-musicbrainz = 1.4.3-3.fc11 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono(taglib-sharp) = 2.0.3.2 for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: podsleuth for package: banshee
--> Processing Dependency: mono-addins for package: banshee
--> Running transaction check
---> Package banshee-musicbrainz.i586 0:1.4.3-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package boo.i586 0:0.8.1.2865-6.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NAnt.DotNetTasks) = 0.85.2478.0 for package: boo
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NAnt.Core) = 0.85.2478.0 for package: boo
---> Package gnome-sharp.i586 0:2.24.0-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gtk-sharp2.i586 0:2.12.7-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-addins.i586 0:0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-core.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(monodoc) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Configuration.Install) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-core
---> Package mono-data.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-data-sqlite.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-web.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Design) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-web
---> Package mono-zeroconf.i586 0:0.7.6-8.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(avahi-sharp) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-zeroconf
---> Package ndesk-dbus.i586 0:0.6.1a-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package ndesk-dbus-glib.i586 0:0.4.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package notify-sharp.i586 0:0.4.0-0.6.20080912svn.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package podsleuth.i586 0:0.6.3-2.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package taglib-sharp.i586 0:2.0.3.2-2.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package avahi-sharp.i586 0:0.6.25-1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-extras.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-winforms.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package monodoc.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package nant.i586 1:0.85-27.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(nunit.util) = 2.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpCvsLib) = 0.35.3721.507 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(nunit.core) = 2.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(log4net) = 1.2.10.0 for package: nant
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDoc.Core) = 1.3.3344.0 for package: nant
--> Running transaction check
---> Package log4net.i586 0:1.2.10-5.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-ndoc.i586 0:1.3.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-nunit22.i586 1:2.2.10-9.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-sharpcvslib.i586 0:0.35-9.fc11 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================================================
Installing:
banshee i586 1.4.3-3.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
Installing for dependencies:
avahi-sharp i586 0.6.25-1.fc11 fedora 35 k
banshee-musicbrainz i586 1.4.3-3.fc11 fedora 40 k
boo i586 0.8.1.2865-6.fc11 fedora 810 k
gnome-sharp i586 2.24.0-3.fc11 fedora 327 k
gtk-sharp2 i586 2.12.7-4.fc11 fedora 819 k
log4net i586 1.2.10-5.fc11 fedora 96 k
mono-addins i586 0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 fedora 484 k
mono-core i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 12 M
mono-data i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-data-sqlite i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 158 k
mono-extras i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-ndoc i586 1.3.1-4.fc11 fedora 304 k
mono-nunit22 i586 1:2.2.10-9.fc11 fedora 148 k
mono-sharpcvslib i586 0.35-9.fc11 fedora 502 k
mono-web i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.1 M
mono-winforms i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
mono-zeroconf i586 0.7.6-8.fc11 fedora 60 k
monodoc i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 7.3 M
nant i586 1:0.85-27.fc11 fedora 637 k
ndesk-dbus i586 0.6.1a-4.fc11 fedora 52 k
ndesk-dbus-glib i586 0.4.1-4.fc11 fedora 11 k
notify-sharp i586 0.4.0-0.6.20080912svn.fc11 fedora 14 k
podsleuth i586 0.6.3-2.fc11 fedora 48 k
taglib-sharp i586 2.0.3.2-2.fc11 fedora 188 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 25 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 36 M
Is this ok [y/N]: Exiting on user Command
Complete!
For Tomboy:
Loaded plugins: downloadonly, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package tomboy.i586 0:0.14.1-2.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gdk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Posix) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gtk-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Gui) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus) = 1.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(pango-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(NDesk.DBus.GLib) = 1.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Xml) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Cairo) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gconf-sharp-peditors) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(glib-sharp) = 2.12.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Addins.Setup) = 0.4.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System) = 2.0.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Processing Dependency: mono(gnome-panel-sharp) = 2.24.0.0 for package: tomboy
--> Running transaction check
---> Package gnome-desktop-sharp.i586 0:2.26.0-1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gnome-sharp.i586 0:2.24.0-3.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package gtk-sharp2.i586 0:2.12.7-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-addins.i586 0:0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-core.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Web) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(monodoc) = 1.0.0.0 for package: mono-core
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Configuration.Install) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-core
---> Package ndesk-dbus.i586 0:0.6.1a-4.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package ndesk-dbus-glib.i586 0:0.4.1-4.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mono-extras.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Windows.Forms) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-extras
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Transactions) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-extras
--> Processing Dependency: mono(System.Windows.Forms) = 1.0.5000.0 for package: mono-extras
---> Package mono-web.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: mono(Mono.Data.Sqlite) = 2.0.0.0 for package: mono-web
---> Package monodoc.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mono-data.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-data-sqlite.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
---> Package mono-winforms.i586 0:2.4-19.fc11 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================================================
Installing:
tomboy i586 0.14.1-2.fc11 fedora 4.6 M
Installing for dependencies:
gnome-desktop-sharp i586 2.26.0-1.fc11 fedora 211 k
gnome-sharp i586 2.24.0-3.fc11 fedora 327 k
gtk-sharp2 i586 2.12.7-4.fc11 fedora 819 k
mono-addins i586 0.4-6.20091702svn127062.1.fc11 fedora 484 k
mono-core i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 12 M
mono-data i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-data-sqlite i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 158 k
mono-extras i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 1.5 M
mono-web i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.1 M
mono-winforms i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 3.0 M
monodoc i586 2.4-19.fc11 fedora 7.3 M
ndesk-dbus i586 0.6.1a-4.fc11 fedora 52 k
ndesk-dbus-glib i586 0.4.1-4.fc11 fedora 11 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 14 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 35 M
Is this ok [y/N]: Exiting on user Command
Complete!
Some months ago we saw that in OpenSUSE, Evolution depended on Mono. Whether this dependency was a mistake or not is almost irrelevant to the fact that Mono becomes less separable from some GTK applications and Winforms is an even bigger issue.█
Opposition Links: Daily Chunk of Articles
• Microsoft Won’t Fix Windows 7′s UAC
After lots and lots of user complaints about how people were annoyed by UAC prompts in Windows Vista, Microsoft gave in to the whiners, and created something called auto-elevation, which allows certain parts of the system to auto-elevate themselves without bringing up any UAC prompts. This way, Microsoft was able to bring down the amount of prompts.
A clever programmer – not a security researcher – quickly found out that this was a pretty braindead decision by Microsoft, as it is now possible to quickly, easily, and silently bypass UAC completely by anything injecting code into the memory of another process, a process with auto-elevation capabilities, using standard, documented APIs. Some noted that this only works for administrators and not for standard user accounts, but since Microsoft still defaults to administrator accounts, that point becomes a bit moot.
• Microsoft wins competition court case
The Seoul District Court in South Korea accepted that Microsoft’s behaviour broke South Korean competition law, but said the companies had not provided evidence that their losses were Microsoft’s fault, according to AP.
[...]
Korean regulators found Microsoft guilty of anti-competitive behaviour over its bundling strategy in 2006. It agreed to pay a fine and offer versions of Windows which offered links to alternative messenger services.
• New DOS attacks threaten wireless data networks
Forget spam, viruses, worms, malware and phishing. These threats are apparently old school when compared to a new class of denial-of-service (DOS) attacks that threaten wireless data networks.
The latest wireless network threats were outlined in a talk here Thursday by Krishan Sabnani, vice president of networking research at Bell Labs, at the Cyber Infrastructure Protection Conference at City College of New York.
• Snow Leopard kisses ZFS bye-bye
Apple’s Snow Leopard padded across the Mac World for the first time in public this week, accompanied by its silent twin, Snow Leopard Server – leaving little trace of ZFS.
Permalink
Comments off Send this to a friend
Real-time Linux Hacker Bill Huey Called the Mono Plan “Misguided”
Update (21/09/09): Huey adds that his criticism of Mono is purely technical and that he never met de Icaza.
Summary: Better to use closed-source Java than to be a prisoner of Redmond; ongoing dialogues about Mono
WHILE LOOKING for some daily videos we found the following gem.
Huey calls Miguel “misguided” (maybe guided by Microsoft), having personally met him already [see update at the top]. He also adds that Java is a lot better than .NET and Mono. That was in 2004, a couple of years before Java was on route to becoming Free software (GPLv2).
Check out this new massive thread which mostly voices opposition to Mono (amongst Linux Today’s readership). In one comment, however, Richard Dale states:
Well Arno Rehn and myself have been quietly working on Qt/KDE Qyoto and Kimono C# bindings for some time and they work pretty well, although I don’t think we done enough to publicize them yet. If someone comes along and writes apps in C# which happen to be as good as Tomboy and F-Spot, and they get included in distributions like Kubuntu, then maybe you’ll have to move somewhere other than KDE.
As far as I know in Gnome there are only applications written using Mono/GTK#. That is very different to writing parts of the infrastructure of Gnome using Mono. It isn’t up to me to decide about what Gnome does, but as far as KDE is concerned there is absolutely zero chance of us basing any infrastructure on Mono. We’re only interested in allowing people to write Qt and KDE applications, plugins and Plasma applets in what some people might think is a tidier language than C++.
Dale is one among those who put Mono bindings in KDE [1, 2, 3, 4]. Arno Rehn is the other [1, 2].
Carla Schroder, the managing editor of Linux Today, has invited more feedback regarding Mono and she personally adds:
The issue is not whether Mono should be available at all, but included in the default Ubuntu image. The pro-Mono comments here are completely ignoring that and instead launching into rah-rah reasons why nobody should object to Mono. (Lotsa luck.) Removing it from the default Ubuntu image and keeping it easily available in the repos is a sensible and simple solution. Thousands of packages do not make it into the default Ubuntu image; it’s not a badge of shame, and I don’t see the sense in including the fat Mono runtime in the scarce real estate of a CD image just to support a few small specialty apps.
One of our readers will explore this issue in more details as well.
I’m planning to do another (different) attempt to get the conversation right in the next weeks, either.
There are patterns of FUD that are used to actually defend Mono. How about this one for a familiar pattern?
DotGNU? They suffer from the same problem. DotGNU only gets mentioned by Mono people, apart from when they’re FUDing them, when they want to deflect some attention away from Mono.
Bernard Swiss argues:
There seems to be some real major, FUD-laced campaigns under way, lately, pushing Mono and denigrating ODF. To to be fair, many participants appear to be absolutely genuine, but there also seems to be some significant upper-tier instigation/coordination “fanning the flames”, so to speak.
Luckily, Mononono is making its entry into Ubuntu. █
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA