Summary: Bar/excepting disc space constraints, Canonical intends to replace Rhythmbox in the next version of the very ubiquitous "Ubuntu" distribution, adding to it components that are explicitly excluded from Microsoft's Community Promise
THE ROCKY LOVE affair of Banshee and Ubuntu goes a long way back and we wrote about it in posts such as:
OMG!Ubuntu asks:
"Which would you choose as default: Banshee or Rhythmbox?"
"So much for the vote they had yesterday," wrote gnubie in our main IRC channel as s/he pointed to
this news from the same site which says that "Banshee becomes Ubuntu 11.04 default music player" (the comments talk about
Mono).
The news headline cannot be confirmed by
Webupd8, which is
another popular information resource that's focused on Ubuntu and says:
- Banshee might be included by default in Ubuntu 11.04 (and thus replace Rhythmbox) if it can be slimmed down to fit on the CD
Compare this to the statement from
OMG!Ubuntu, which says: "Banshee is to be the default music player in Ubuntu 11.04 Natty Narwhal – providing issues with disc space can be overcome."
By making Mono unavailable by default in Ubuntu a lot of disc space would be saved. But there are other issues or noteworthy factors here, notably the Microsoft APIs and the fact that Banshee contains parts of Mono that we know for a fact based on the Microsoft Community Promise (MCP) to be a patent trap.
Why does Canonical add software which Novell totally controls and Microsoft has power over? There are still some people out there who
thank Novell for such gifts and even call Mono "great":
The Great
Mono -
I know Mono isn’t the most popular project in the open source community but working in the real world mono is one of the most important project Novell backs. The need to have C# programs work across multiple platforms has become very important. It finally blurs what operating system you need to run a program and given the choice of SUSE with Mono vs Microsoft Server with .Net from a cost prospective SUSE is the best route. Porting .NET applications to Mono isn’t that hard and any new applications written in Mono will work perfectly on Windows so there really is no reason not to use Mono to develop your .NET applications
The main goal here is to develop with Microsoft's API what could otherwise be achieved with Java for example. Mono is
not a GNU/Linux project (it is about .NET) and it's risky. Now that
the SCO-esque Microsoft sues many companies without prior provocation, Canonical would be wise to stay with Rhythmbox.
⬆
"I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue"
--Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist
Comments
twitter
2010-10-30 15:38:19
.NET, like VB and MFC before it, is Microsoft's sucker language. While no developer should expect equal treatment to Microsoft on Windows, the wrapper frameworks are the poorest performers and most easy to sabotage tools available. Microsoft rewards their MVPs with lawsuits if anything of use is ever made. Windows performance is second rate even in the best of cases. The best way to avoid this abuse is to leave Windows and Microsoft behind.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-10-30 19:36:48