Clarifications About GNOME
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2007-11-07 11:56:58 UTC
- Modified: 2007-11-07 12:01:16 UTC
Jeff Waugh has strongly insisted that this Web site is doing no justice to GNOME. We thought we ought to include (with his implicit permission) large portions of the conversation with him. Editing this would require a lot of time, but this should hopefully shed light on misconception that may have led to disinformation in the past. His input was greatly appreciated.
Jeff said:
You've just posted another embarrassing mess here, with serious lack of attention to relevant technical details:
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/
You even refer to me in the article:
"This seems to shatter Jeff’s argument, after he requested a correction. For all it seems, GNOME is indeed becoming dependent on Mono."
Didn't that tweak something in your mind to perhaps get in touch, to ask if this is in fact the case? If you're going to assert that my argument has been "shattered", perhaps double-checking that would be a good idea before posting it to your site. You're posting wild "revelations" from random folk who contact you, without doing enough fact-checking to avoid embarrassing yourself, when you have *full access* to people in the FLOSS community who will actually put these things straight from a position of deep knowledge.
Are you not getting in touch because you're concerned that my refutations will have an impact on the controversy value of your stories?
I'll refute this when you get in touch.
This is a fair point and I appreciate Jeff's approach. Since the invitation was polite I carried on expressing my concerns more specifically.
I believe this has a little to do with semantics. When I refer to GNOME, perhaps I should clarify that it does not refer to standalone GNOME (to be compiled from source code, for example), but to GNOME when it's packages in pretty much every major distro. In each such distro, it appears not to be trivial to remove Mono, and it's becoming harder and harder all the time.
Jeff asked me to be asking questions.
That too is not the case. Again, you're stating things without asking any questions. Why don't you ask?
Quoting some links that have been accumulated I added:
Here is a list of URLs which indicate that Mono is put inside many GNOME (by default, with the exception of Mandriva) based distributions.
OpenSUSE:
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-commit/2007-09/msg00634.html
Ubuntu:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntustudio/+bug/114957/comments/7
Fedora 7:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=262838
Mandriva:
http://www.beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/09/06/07/24/16-2-mi…
I worry that businesses will become heavily dependent on Mono and then receive demands for money (patent 'protection'). KDE does not have such problems yet.
I know it's not GNOME's fault (I didn't know this before), but those that build a GNOME-based environment might be giving GNOME an undesirable image, IMHO. Miguel continues to escape the issue.
The response was reasonable and welcome, albeit not so pleasant (the lack of vocal tone in E-mails might be blamed here).
Here is a list of URLs which indicate that Mono is put inside many GNOME (by default, with the exception of Mandriva) based distributions.
Okay, given that you're STILL not asking ANY questions, I'll interpret this sharing of sources as a request for more information as to why your analysis and conclusions are wrong.
OpenSUSE:
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-commit/2007-09/msg00634.html
This does not indicate any dependency on Mono whatsoever. You're welcome to *ASK* why. This is a packaging patch.
Ubuntu:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntustudio/+bug/114957/comments/7
This does not indicate any dependency on Mono whatsoever. You're welcome to *ASK* why. This is a bug related to packaging file conflicts during a devel cycle.
Fedora 7:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=262838
This does not indicate any dependency on Mono whatsoever. You're welcome to *ASK* why.
Mandriva:
http://www.beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/09/06/07/24/16-2-mi…
This does not indicate any dependency on Mono whatsoever. You're welcome to *ASK* why.
I worry that businesses will become heavily dependent on Mono and then receive demands for money (patent 'protection'). KDE does not have such problems yet.
As a dose of severe reality for you: KDE has plenty of problems with patent encumberancies, much like GNOME and the rest of the FLOSS world. Problems do not arise simply through bizaare attempts at conspiracy theory construction between FLOSS projects, Novell and Microsoft.
I know it's not GNOME's fault (I didn't know this before), but those that build a GNOME-based environment might be giving GNOME an undesirable image, IMHO. Miguel continues to escape the issue.
Miguel has nothing to do with GNOME and nothing to do with decisions that individual distributions make with regards to the software they distribute. This conclusion in your email, much like plenty of statments on your site, is not related to the substance of the issue at hand. That's a disappointing way to write, particularly about important community issues.
Again, I remind you: ASK QUESTIONS. I've given you an opportunity in every section above where you provide sources to ASK QUESTIONS. Do it, so you can get into the habit.
Jeff made some fair assessments which hopefully show places where we reported inaccurately. On the URLs, here is my explanation:
The URLs above were grabbed quickly from a comment which posted yesterday (not mine). Perhaps they do not demonstrate the issue I spoke about, but they show the presence of Mono in builds of these distros.
With regards to other projects, such as KDE:
There are other issues here:
1. Mono isn't just an issue of patents. With .NET going shared source, SCO-like claims become a danger.
2. Novell signed a patent deal. Had it not signed it, Microsoft would find it harder to demand businesses to pay for patents.
I am not convinced there's parity here.
The remainder goes as follows:
Miguel has nothing to do with GNOME and nothing to do with decisions that individual distributions make with regards to the software they distribute. This conclusion in your email, much like plenty of statments on your site, is not related to the substance of the issue at hand. That's a disappointing way to write, particularly about important community issues.
The way I write as you call it does not disappoint /me/ while I still believe in what I write and I fail to be convinced that I was wrong, with a few exceptions where I corrected myself (e.g. about the future of GNOME, per the linux.com article)
Again, I remind you: ASK QUESTIONS. I've given you an opportunity in every section above where you provide sources to ASK QUESTIONS. Do it, so you can get into the habit.
I will do, Jeff. I appreciate your feedback. You must understand, however, that I can't just parrot arguments which I am not entirely convinced are true (the example above, which relates to Novell, can be considered here).
The remainder of this:
The URLs above were grabbed quickly from a comment which posted yesterday (not mine). Perhaps they do not demonstrate the issue I spoke about, but they show the presence of Mono in builds of these distros.
No they don't. Again, I note you haven't asked any questions here. I suggest you do, as a matter of research. I could not have made it more clear in my answers that you need to ask questions.
1. Mono isn't just an issue of patents. With .NET going shared source, SCO-like claims become a danger.
That was the case with Java for years. That is still the case with all kinds of things, including Samba. There's a metric buttload of code out there that we as FLOSS developers can't look at. This has and always will be an issue, whether the code is owned by Microsoft or not.
2. Novell signed a patent deal. Had it not signed it, Microsoft would find it harder to demand businesses to pay for patents.
Microsoft aren't interested in getting people to pay for patents. They're interested in using them to keep companies out of the market, and make sure they can defend themselves against other patent holders.
The way I write as you call it does not disappoint /me/ while I still believe in what I write and I fail to be convinced that I was wrong
But you haven't asked *WHY* you're wrong yet. I haven't explained it because you haven't *ASKED*. I've given you every opportunity. I've suggested it as clear as day. I have made this so easy for you, yet you still come back with statements, assumptions and NO QUESTIONS.
I'm trying to help you get in the habit, so I'm facilitating your ability to ask questions of a knowledgeable source, such that you're more comfortable and likely to do it in the future.
Come on, I'm handing this to you on a silver platter: Please, please, please include a question in your next email. I can answer it, you can see how your statements (and "evidence" provided by whoever posted to your site) was not correct, and we can get on with actual details relevant to the issue of Mono and GNOME.
You'd rather have the right information, wouldn't you? One question is all you need to ask. Just one question. Go for it!
Okay, I was hoping you would correct me where you believed I was wrong, so let me ask a question instead. Which Linux distributions come with GNOME but without Mono?
Another question would be, do you think it is 'safe' for businesses to use Mono amid times of saber-rattling? (I'm aware of the fact that Australia has 'inherited' the amazingly broken stance on software patents (America style), which is bad news to everyone and I sympathise)
Jeff then made a very strong argument which shows that GNOME and Mono are still somewhat independent in the sense that they can be separated safely.
Okay, I was hoping you would correct me where you believed I was wrong, so let me ask a question instead. Which Linux distributions come with GNOME but without Mono?
I'm not sure, I don't track that very closely. Perhaps you could look at it from their point of view: Ubuntu and Fedora are comfortable enough with Mono to ship it. Perhaps you're making a big deal about something that is less of an issue that you believe? (There are quite a few things backing that up.)
Anyway, you've asked the wrong question again, assuming that GNOME is wedged to Mono in some way. I'm sick of this idiotic conversation, so I'm going to give you the answer you've managed to stay away from asking for the entire discussion. Next time, do your research, and ASK QUESTIONS of people who know what's going on, so you don't make such silly mistakes on your website.
libbeagle is a C library with no Mono dependencies. It is simply an access method for C programs should they wish to interface with Mono. You can take all the Mono packages out of your system without removing GNOME. Sure, you will lose access to Mono-based software such as Beagle, Tomboy, F-Spot and Banshee, but if that's your goal, you *CAN 100% ACHIEVE IT*. GNOME is not bound to Mono, even in the distributions that ship it. I will demonstrate on my Ubuntu machine:
# remove anything that mentions 'mono' in its package name... COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}' | grep mono | xargs sudo apt-get autoremove --purge
... (snip boring bits) ...
The following packages will be REMOVED: banshee* banshee-daap* boo* f-spot* libart2.0-cil* libavahi1.0-cil*
libgconf2.0-cil* libglade2.0-cil* libglib2.0-cil* libgmime2.2-cil*
libgnome-vfs2.0-cil* libgnome2.0-cil* libgsf0.0-cil* libgtk2.0-cil*
libgtkhtml2.0-cil* libipoddevice0* libmono-cairo1.0-cil*
libmono-cairo2.0-cil* libmono-corlib1.0-cil* libmono-corlib2.0-cil*
libmono-data-tds1.0-cil* libmono-data-tds2.0-cil* libmono-security1.0-cil*
libmono-security2.0-cil* libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil* libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil*
libmono-sqlite2.0-cil* libmono-system-data1.0-cil*
libmono-system-data2.0-cil* libmono-system-web1.0-cil*
libmono-system-web2.0-cil* libmono-system1.0-cil* libmono-system2.0-cil*
libmono0* libmono1.0-cil* libmono2.0-cil* libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil*
libndesk-dbus1.0-cil* libnjb5* librsvg2.0-cil* libsgutils1*
libtaglib2.0-cil* mono-classlib-2.0* mono-common* mono-gac* mono-jit*
mono-runtime* tomboy*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 48 to remove and 252 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 61.8MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Abort.
See that? All of Mono gone. Completely functional GNOME desktop left for my use. Standard packaging as provided by Ubuntu. Yes, libbeagle0 will remain on my system, but it is *NOT* based on Mono, nor (as demonstrated so clearly above) does it depend on Mono.
Another question would be, do you think it is 'safe' for businesses to use Mono amid times of saber-rattling? (I'm aware of the fact that Australia has 'inherited' the amazingly broken stance on software patents (America style), which is bad news to everyone and I sympathise)
Ask Canonical and Red Hat, who ship Mono with their distributions, and do not have relationships with Novell or Red Hat. I have the impression that using the ECMA-standardised parts of Mono is safe, and there are plenty of defensive measures in place (such as OIN) for us and our users. I've worked to try and get Miguel (and other Mono folks) to separate the ECMA standard chunks of Mono from the rest of it, to make it clear what those in the FLOSS world who want to write software with Mono can use comfortably. That would be a bigger win than simply deep-sixing Mono for ideological reasons -- I'm sure you'd say the same thing about Samba, Wine, etc. Should we dump them, or try to be in the best position to draw advantage from them without fear?
None of this implies that Mono is of strategic interest to the GNOME project (in fact the obvious conclusion is that it doesn't, because both the GNOME and Mono hackers have had to do quite a bit of work to keep it technically at arms lenght), so please do not fall for that conclusion either.
Despite my frustration at your approach to this conversation, I am still here to answer your questions when you realise that research and knowledge are more important than making controversy. I will help you make your site accurate on issues related to GNOME, Mono, Novell, OOXML/ODF, etc., so that the accuracy and correctness of your claims assist with the mission of the site you run.
I would have to admit at this stage that, other than telling me that I asked the wrong question (i.e. not the question he wanted me to ask, I presume), Jeff made an excellent point and provided proof to show that GNOME-Mono dependency is probably a myth. I replied:
Thanks, Jeff. That has been very useful and I'm convinced on certain issues that I now understand better. Can I use parts of our correspondence to post corrections and clarifications? It needs to be clarified that GNOME and Mono are separate by all means, which I can now see.
Jeff concludes by clarifying and summarising some key points:
As I've said in previous mails, there are some ways in which GNOME and Mono are related (in the same sense that there are some ways in which GNOME and other FLOSS projects are related), so "by all means" is not correct. I'll make it clear again:
* Tomboy, a Mono-based application, is included in the GNOME Desktop suite
* gtk-sharp is included in the GNOME Bindings suite, so that third-party developers can create GNOME applications using C# and/or the CLR
* No other Mono applications have been proposed for or included in the official GNOME release suites
* There is no clear agreement within the GNOME project to proactively adopt Mono or to avoid its use entirely
* There is absolutely no requirement to have Mono in order to run GNOME
Hopefully this establishes some key points and we can refer back to it in the future. I wish I had time to edit this properly, but I'm under a lot of workload at the moment.
Comments
Slated
2007-11-07 12:23:00
The question remains, for what purpose do Mono bindings exists in Gnome, if not to bind to Mono?
The mere fact that libbeagle itself is written in C, rather than Mono, does not mean that it is somehow immune to criticism, since libbeagle exists for a purpose, and that purpose is something quite malignant.
So my assertion stands, that for all practical purposes (i.e. the reality of most GNU/Linux distributions), Gnome is shipped with Yelp as standard, and Yelp has (in most distros) libbeagle as a dependency, and libbeagle is the binding required for applications to link to Beagle - a Mono application - and for no other purpose.
Saying that users do not necessarily need to install Beagle, is like saying to a man to whom you've just sold a shotgun - you don't need to use this weapon, but you can if you want to. It's ridiculous. Of course he's going to use it ... why else would he buy it?
What you have just witnessed is a "shuffle" worthy of a politician. The fact is that those embroiled in this fiasco now have a vested interest in seeing it through to the bitter end ... and that end is the rapid promotion of Mono. They will twist the arguments round and round until they end up forcing you to ask the questions they want you to ask, and then they'll deliver the answer that they have indoctrinated you to accept. Be wary of manipulation.
Back when Mono was new, the Fedora project leaders vowed that it would never enter the distro tree. Today, they ship Mono. Later they vowed that Gnome would not be shipped with Mono bindings by default. Today, Mono bindings are part of the core distribution.
What do you suppose is the next logical step?
The Gnome and Novell people involved in Mono are pushing hard for adoption, that much is certain, since it has already infested distributions that previously swore not to adopt it. How long before the conditions, that are not yet true, do in fact become a reality? Tomorrow? Next week? They are travelling a straight path with no exits ... there can only ever be one destination. They can twist and turn and try to pretend that they are not headed in that direction, but the truth is blatantly obvious, no matter how they try to hide it.
Now as to the question of whether or not Mono is actually poisonous IP, well again Jeff carefully evades the truth, eluding to "ongoing work". The fact that someone even needs to "work" at keeping Mono "clean", should tell you all you need to know about this toxic waste.
The point is; there are other, better, solution than Mono, and yet there is still this massive effort to drag it kicking and screaming into GNU/Linux.
Why?
What on earth can be so important about Mono that it is so essential to endanger GNU/Linux for the sake of adopting a sanitised version of Microsoft's IP?
And what is this technology? It is Java with a Microsoft trademark, that is all. It is Microsoft's slap in the face to Sun, for daring to sue them for their criminal "embrace and extend" tactics with an illegally mutilated form of Java.
Have you seen Java and C# code side-by-side? It is virtually identical. Is there no one left with the common sense and presence of mind to understand that .NET is nothing but a farce - a Microsoft "reinvention" to "fscking kill Sun". And here we are ... the Free Software community ... helping them to commit this crime. Are we mad? Who are these raving lunatics, these naive idiots, who thought that would be a good idea? It defies belief.
There are other things in GNU/Linux that very obviously provide support for Microsoft technologies, like Wine, ntfs-3g, and SAMBA; but all of these technologies are peripheral to the function of the operating system. With Mono, this is the first time that the very foundation of the code itself is based upon something which may, or may not, be controllable by Microsoft.
Imagine a future where the sum total of everything in a GNU/Linux distribution is written in Mono. Now imagine that Microsoft/ECMA's "promise" to provide a "Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" right to .NET technology is revoked. Prove that couldn't happen. Indeed, look at what has already happened. Why does Microsoft provide .NET patent protection exclusively to Novell, and no other Linux vendor ... not even any of the other three members of their private little "club"? Microsoft have already contradicted that RAND promise, since an exclusionary deal (such as the one they have with Novell) is already in contradiction to the "Non-Discriminatory" terms they laid out.
IOW this RAND promise has already been broken. Anyone stupid enough to embrace Mono at this point, is literally delivering their fate right into Microsoft's hands. It's sheer insanity.
And let's pretend for one moment that Microsoft is not the vile, contemptuous company that it is, and that they don't bribe ISO members, and that they don't sabotage Linux vendors' deals - like they recently did with Mandriva, and that they are not convicted monopolists on two continents. Let assume that they have good intentions, and that they will never use shell companies like Acacia or SCO or Baystar to attack GNU/Linux. Let's assume that Mono, .NET, and the company that inflicted this technology on the world is a safe bet, and that everyone will (against all odds) live happily ever after.
Safe or not, why use Mono to recreate Linux in Microsoft's image?
Isn't the whole point of Linux to strike out on its own, be independent, forge its own destiny, do things its own way, and never have to rely on those who might pervert that Freedom for dubious ends?
By embracing Mono, the Free Software community is bastardising Linux into a Frankenstein's Monster; perverting it into something that from both a technical and political perspective is, for all intents and purposes, just another version of Windows.
Is that what the Free Software community really wants?
Because it certainly is not what I want.
vexorian
2007-11-07 13:24:45
Why even include tomboy in default gnome? Besides of it being totally useless (I seriously haven't met anyone that uses/needs it) It got a MONO dependency that does not look right to me.
Anonymous
2007-11-07 15:30:41
Is there anything this web site is doing justice to?
akf
2007-11-07 15:49:16
I do use GNOME and I have looked and found no Mono packages are installed. So at least for Debian I can tell, that GNOME does not depend on Mono.
TaQ
2007-11-07 15:55:31
Not a surprise as it's the same guy that told Alan Cox to "contribute more with the community": http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2007-November/msg00027.html
The thread messages give an idea on how "delicate" some arguments can be to some people. Some of the messages shows that it's became that kind of useless endless loop discussion where they defeat you by telling you're always wrong, because you don't play on their terms, and they're right. Point. So you became tired and let them talking alone. I think that was what Alan did.
"Is there anything this web site is doing justice to?"
Yes, to the freedom of *not to use* some things we don't like and think it's, let's say, dangerous, and policy that it will stay this way.
As we have - and conquered - the freedom to use the software we want (and this is not an easy thing on the massive monopoly situation that keep pressure nowadays), we need to have the freedom of not to use software we think that can mess with our freedom.
This is only achieved if we don't have some weird impositions of more weird pieces of software contaminating all the good Free Software we have now, and if we policy and tell people what is happening now. Maybe we're kind of late - or tired - to see the things happening without saying a word about that, but seems that those times are gone. Let's awake and make some noise before it's too late.
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-07 20:18:50
Care to be specific? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we write something that is inaccurate, then you can tell us and we'll amend. Miguel used to make similar accusations without being specific at all. Jeff, on the other hand, has patiently addressed some particular issues.
Jeff Waugh
2007-11-08 01:24:20
It's not a snakey political answer, just because we have stuff that interfaces with Mono used by GNOME applications -- it is actually a result of quite some work *because* GNOME hasn't bought into Mono completely. They're stuck doing this work because they know it's controversial and know that the whole GNOME community isn't convinced yet.
Slated
2007-11-08 09:00:56
And hopefully never will be.
Serenitude
2007-11-08 14:40:38
I'm not sure that the GNOME project devs realize the the depth of the public perception of thier project at this point. If it weren't for Ubuntu...
TaQ
2007-11-08 15:41:35
Roy Schestowitz
2007-11-08 18:10:00
It seems like only the OOXML controversy will be addressed. I'd advise Jeff to consider making clarifications on Mono as well, if possible. Let's have this resolved once and for all.