Comments

• aeshna23

  2008-12-23 02:18:46

  I don't understand. Is this just for Evolution on openSuse? Or do other distros get infected also? KDE users like me need a little more info to access the threat.

• Diamond Wakizashi

  2008-12-23 03:01:19

  Mono was created by Microsoft's bitch Novell for the purpose of making Linux users Microsoft slaves. Novell should apologize for their horrid betrayal of open source.

• Shane Coyle

  2008-12-23 04:13:47

  Mandriva also has apparently experienced this phenomenon of evolution-mono dependency in the past, it looks like a bug related to enabling mono plugins but some reason everything gets linked, or the package maintainer may have flubbed the dependencies... unsure if this opensuse 11.1 issue is the same/similar since I don't run opensuse, but it's possible it's just an error...
  
  Or, an insidious plot. ;^ )

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 07:34:55

  Shane has it basically right: Evolution has the ability to use Mono plugins in the same way it uses plugins from different languages. The packagers have incorrectly made that a package dependency.
  
  GNOME policy doesn't allow it to simply grow a Mono dependency. So, no apology needed. It is a bit disappointing to see another demand for restitution where none is deserved, though.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 09:31:10

  I pointed this out earlier in IRC. Even plugins create an issue, though. See the bit about "functionality".

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 10:35:46

  it looks like a bug related to enabling mono plugins but some reason everything gets linked, or the package maintainer may have flubbed the dependencies… unsure if this opensuse 11.1 issue is the same/similar since I don’t run opensuse, but it’s possible it’s just an error…

  
  
  Not necessarily an error - but certainly a consequence of braindead RPM packaging. RPM systems tend to use enormous, monolithic, kitchen-sink packages, which have all dependencies for all components as a result. So if you're building one minor plugin feature, that bridge library is included in the main package, and dependencies grow from there. The Mandriva OOo case is another example of this issue - Ubuntu and Debian also enable all OOo/Mono bridges, but they are shoved into entirely optional packages - if you don't install libuno-cli-*1.0-cil, you don't get that functionality OR that dependency. See also: kde4bindings

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 10:38:33

  Bottom line: it's getting harder to get rid of Mono.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 11:05:00

  Bottom line: it’s getting harder to get rid of Mono.

  
  
  On distros with monolithic packages for the most bloated of apps? Yeah. But that's a failure of the distro and its packages.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 11:07:13

  Blame the distro, don't blame the Mono?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 11:13:20

  Blame the distro, don’t blame the Mono?

  
  
  Yes. Definitely. If someone puts a Depends: wine into a kernel package, it'd be that packager's failing. Bad dependencies are one of the main reasons I avoid RPM distros.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 11:15:10

  Well, the applications space is being tempered with. It would be easier had Poisonware been kept out.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 11:30:25

  Whatever you say, Roy.
  
  Meanwhile, back on planet earth, we assign blame where it's due - and in this case, an unnecessary bundling of a binding with its parent app is the fault of lazy packagers

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 11:56:04

  It remains to be seen if SUSE developers will address this issue. It's in Novell's interests to spread its poison as widely as possible because only Novell is 'licensed' to use Mono.

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 13:11:47

  All major distros disagree with that statement.

• vincent

  2008-12-23 13:34:07

  Maybe Evolution 3.0 will use C# and Mono 2.0 ?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 13:50:42

  Maybe Evolution 3.0 will use C# and Mono 2.0 ?

  
  
  The unmaintainable bloated mess of C that forms Evolution was the main reason Mono was started in the first place

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 14:13:17

  So you don't even refute this.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 14:18:32

  So you don’t even refute this.

  
  
  Not my decision - it's a decision for Evolution's primary developers (and their decision as to whether rewriting hundreds of thousands of lines of source in a different language is worth the effort)
  
  You understand how Free Software works, right?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 14:28:00

  Yes, it's Microsoft's partner poisoning GNOME.
  
  http://projects.gnome.org/evolution/ "Copyright ۩ 2004-2008 Novell Inc."
  
  http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/evolution.html

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 14:33:06

  Yes, it’s Microsoft’s partner poisoning GNOME.

  
  
  Nobody is forcing distribution maintainers to include it should things go that way, nobody is precluding the idea of a fork should anyone feel one is required.
  
  You understand how Free Software works, right?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 14:36:50

  Novell has some sort of preferential hiring of .NET (Mono) developers. It's "direction by design", from above.

• Shane Coyle

  2008-12-23 14:41:44

  You understand how Free Software works, right?
  
  Yup, DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 14:43:20

  Yup, DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!

  
  
  WOO?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 14:43:45

  Video here. :-)

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 14:58:38

  Evolution isn't "poison", Mono plugins or not.
  
  FWIW, Miguel has been asked about Evo specifically a number of times and he's always stated that it wouldn't be useful to rewrite it.
  
  Of course, at some point, someone likely will write a major application in Mono because it's an extremely comfortable development environment, and at some point the anti-Mono boys will just have to deal with not using it.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:02:09

  FWIW, Miguel has been asked about Evo specifically a number of times and he’s always stated that it wouldn’t be useful to rewrite it.

  
  
  With Miguel 'in charge' of Evolution, one can surely be relieved.
  
  

  Of course, at some point, someone likely will write a major application in Mono because it’s an extremely comfortable development environment, and at some point the anti-Mono boys will just have to deal with not using it.

  
  
  Do you know something that we don't know? Who is it that facilitates development in Mono again?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:03:47

  Of course, at some point, someone likely will write a major application in Mono because it’s an extremely comfortable development environment, and at some point the anti-Mono boys will just have to deal with not using it.

  
  
  I was exceedingly amused by an Ubuntu Forums post by someone saying they'd drunk Roy's Kool-Aid, but for some reason Gnome-Do wasn't working for them anymore

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:10:21

  That's hardly relevant.
  
  I'm still catching up...
  
  "So the Mono dependency can't be restricted to an evolution-mono subpackage; as soon as you build Evolution with Mono support, the main package itself will always depend on libmono, even though it really doesn't use it for anything.
  
  "Would it be possible to improve this, so that Mono plugin support does not require the main executable to be dynamically linked against libmono, and we could ship an evolution package which does *not* depend on libmono and an evolution-mono package which does? Thanks."
  
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549025
  
  "The rest of the so-called improvements can be seen in this Novell release. But bear in mind that several of these "delights" cannot be experienced unless you are willing to risk patent problems and leave Mono on your system.
  
  "Here's a quote that says it much better than I ever could: "Mono is all about getting existing Windows applications, and their Microsoft-proprietary dependencies, installed on to your Linux system, so that you will in the near future require a paid-for license from Microsoft to run programs on your Linux system.""
  
  http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22434/1090/1/1/

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:15:31

  This is "just a bug" coming from just the Novell-controlled distro, which casually has added a false Mono dependency to evolution because Mono plugins are so important and needed in evolution.
  
  

  Of course, at some point, someone likely will write a major application in Mono because it’s an extremely comfortableoverrated development environment,

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:19:40

  One day, Roy, you might actually read what you link to. Until then, you'll continue to make a total fool of yourself, and further screw with whatever passes for a reputation around here.
  
  

  “So the Mono dependency can’t be restricted to an evolution-mono subpackage; as soon as you build Evolution with Mono support, the main package itself will always depend on libmono, even though it really doesn’t use it for anything.
  
  “Would it be possible to improve this, so that Mono plugin support does not require the main executable to be dynamically linked against libmono, and we could ship an evolution package which does *not* depend on libmono and an evolution-mono package which does? Thanks.”
  
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549025

  
  
  Status: RESOLVED Resolution: FIXED
  
  Comment #7 from Matthew Barnes (Evolution developer, points: 21) 2008-10-22 13:06 UTC
  
  Committed to trunk (revision 36675).
  
  Non-issue. Distortion. Blah blah blah, you get the idea.
  
  

  Mono is all about getting existing Windows applications, and their Microsoft-proprietary dependencies, installed on to your Linux system, so that you will in the near future require a paid-for license from Microsoft to run programs on your Linux system.

  
  
  Conspiracy theorist rambling, with zero basis in reality. Aligning yourself to that kind of nonsense is somewhere lower than UFO cultists.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:22:38

  Evil conspiracy theorists are behind all of this, they made the Novell-MS pact up and it is because of conspiracy theorists that the world is convinced that .net is heavy on software patents, in true, software patents don't exist, it is all a plan from conspiracy theorists to take over the world.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:26:23

  I was exceedingly amused by an Ubuntu Forums post by someone saying they’d drunk Roy’s Kool-Aid, but for some reason Gnome-Do wasn’t working for them anymore

  
  
  The push to make the whole desktop dependent on Mono is so strong lately that they will keep making up apps like this in Mono. AlexH's plan of making those who don't like running Mono just not use the desktop is just going to work. A desktop without Mono is becoming more and more of a myth, we can thank Novell for this since thanks to then, we need MS technology to run so-called Linux apps.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:26:41

  Evil conspiracy theorists are behind all of this, they made the Novell-MS pact up and it is because of conspiracy theorists that the world is convinced that .net is heavy on software patents, in true, software patents don’t exist, it is all a plan from conspiracy theorists to take over the world.

  
  
  Having fun?

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 15:30:00

  @Victor: please don't put words in my mouth; I have no interest in people using Mono or not - that's up to them. I support people being able to avoid Mono, however I also support people developing in Mono.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:30:29

  That was satire. Don't be foolish by discrediting the state of those who explain a side-effect of your work (jo Shields is one of the key people behind Mono for those who don't know).

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:31:11

  That last comment was aimed at Jo.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:34:43

  "Key people"? I've moved up in the world!

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:39:53

  You put it inside the most widely used GNU/Linux distribution.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:41:11

  I didn't put it anywhere. I help maintain what was already there to the highest standards, in the interest of enabling developers and users access to the highest quality foundations possible.
  
  You DO know how Free Software works, right?

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:44:30

  AlexH. I was annoyed by this:

  Of course, at some point, someone likely will write a major application in Mono because it’s an extremely comfortable development environment, and at some point the anti-Mono boys will just have to deal with not using it.

  It is currently easy not to use Mono, I mean, tomboy is about the least useful thing to ever come in a default setup, F-spot and chesse are almost equals and some things that are mostly just eye candy for things that are already possible, like gnome-do or beagle are not necessary.
  
  But as time passes, since we choose to just look around, do you know what's happening? More money will be put on apps that use Mono, or that's already happening, while the alternatives will remain ignored by Novell's people, eventually filling the Mono apps with features so people begin to push for them to be included in the defaults, try a look at brainstorm, some beings are already pushing banshee instead of rythmbox...
  
  Eventually not using Mono will make you a second-class citizen. Just not using Mono is not going to work. I sure hope people understand this is going to happen. Cause every year it is closer to that, this bug just says something about it... Someone pushed for evolution mono plugins, effectively evolution will begin to have more features if mono is enabled...
  
  What I don't want is to lose my right not to choose technology that was designed, patented and in part coded, by Microsoft, unfortunately, I am seeing how things are evolving towards the lost of this right. "Every computer running Microsoft software" that's their dream.
  
  Of course, the evil conspiracy theory begins when we say that MS will eventually pull the plug out of Mono, users will have to decide whether to move back to the abandoned non-Mono desktop or to just begin paying for Mono licensing. This is a conspiracy theory, but just because it is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it won't happen. I would surely trust this thing a lot more if it wasn't for Novell's deal, I still don't get why would they sign it if they didn't think MS couldn't do this, and the fact that in the deal, Mono protection is exclusive to Novell, is something I don't like too much...
  
  Of course, this is the part in which the whole post is ridiculed, because Mono is so awesome and it is so impossible to code in other languages, that everyone should be accepting of it, developers should pick tools based on their commodity rather than the long term, I get it...

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:48:09

  Don't underestimate the role of Moonlight in this.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:48:32

  Back-seat developers are beginning to drive me up the wall. If you want something a particular way, DO IT AND SUBMIT PATCHES
  
  You DO know how Free Software works, right?

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:48:40

  Of course, I would be happy if not using mono remained a possible option, it should be possible to port apps or at least from Mono to other platforms, as a matter of fact, I plan to try it once I get more into GTK dev. Maybe some boycott Novell regulars could put their money where they put their mouth and help me.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:49:11

  Don’t underestimate the role of Moonlight in this.

  
  
  DO feel free to explain what Moonlight has to do with Evolution, Roy.
  
  I'm waiting :)

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:50:30

  Maybe some boycott Novell regulars could put their money where they put their mouth and help me.

  
  
  That would be WONDERFUL. Please, do.
  
  Whatever next? Enhancing non-Mono apps to be technically better, removing the need for things like F-Spot or Tomboy?

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:50:40

  That previous post was a response to my other post.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:51:03

  DO feel free to explain what Moonlight has to do with Evolution, Roy.

  
  
  I was referring to this comment about Mono, not Evolution.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 15:51:31

  Yes, Victor has just beaten me to it.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:51:39

  Whatever next? Enhancing non-Mono apps to be technically better, removing the need for things like F-Spot or Tomboy?

  At least the second part is already done.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:55:26

  That comment about F-spot and cheese was non-sense , what's supposedly F-spot's alternative? I am not used to that photo stuff.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 15:56:43

  That comment about F-spot and cheese was non-sense , what’s supposedly F-spot’s alternative? I am not used to that photo stuff.

  
  
  My understanding is GThumb is the preferred alternative. I don't use either, or have any interest in photo organizing apps.

• Victor Soliz

  2008-12-23 15:58:02

  Yes, Victor has just beaten me to it.

  Not really, I was just saying my "Of course, I would be happy ..." post was a continuation to the previous one, I wrote it before the other replies.

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 17:29:22

  @Victor: the thing is, you can't tell other people what to do. If you don't want to use PHP, for example, you could moan about not being able to use Wordpress but realistically that's your choice.
  
  If you feel Mono is too big a patent threat, that again is your choice. However, other people (and distributions) can make a different choice.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 17:56:50

  @AlexH: "The thing is, you can’t tell other people what to do." Well, explain that to Microsoft, who is telling everyone "pay us for our patents", with the help of Novell (the Novell deal legitimises Microsoft claim) The problem is that Novell and Microsoft have already taken that decision for all of us.

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 18:03:38

  @SubSonica: if any payment was needed, now or in the future, it wouldn't be included in distributions as free software. Software patent problems are not new and are relatively well understood.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 18:44:53

  @AlexH: At least mono, moonlight and any software using msooxml was released under the GPLv3.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 18:45:43

  Sorry; I meant: @AlexH: At least mono, moonlight and any software using msooxml SHOULD BE released under the GPLv3.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 18:46:25

  At least mono, moonlight and any software using msooxml was released under the GPLv3.

  
  
  Why?

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 18:50:54

  @SubSonica: the copyright license isn't that relevant really, I don't think.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 19:03:20

  @JoShields: To protect the software against de-facto proprietarization through patent threats and in order to guarantee the freedoms and rights are inheritable by the contributors, and that inheritance is not impeded by patent claims/threats/rackets:
  
  Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.
  
  @AlexH, Then you wouldn't mind if it was released under the GPLv3, wouldn't you?

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 19:14:22

  @SubSonica: no, I don't care either way - the GPLv3 is a fine license.
  
  But I don't understand why you think that would be an improvement. For example, Microsoft are highly unlikely to be Mono users, so the license of Mono is basically irrelevant to them.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 19:14:46

  @JoShields: To protect the software against de-facto proprietarization through patent threats and in order to guarantee the freedoms and rights are inheritable by the contributors, and that inheritance is not impeded by patent claims/threats/rackets:
  
  Section 10 prohibits people who convey the software from filing patent suits against other licensees. If someone did so anyway, section 8 explains how they would lose their license and any patent licenses that accompanied it.

  
  
  Only works if the people pressing patent claims are also the authors of the software - it would prevent, say, Sun from filing patent suits to users of GPLv3 software they release, but not Microsoft. If that is the desired effect, then a number of other GPLv3-compatible licenses with similar patent retaliation clauses could also be used (e.g. Ms-PL)
  
  Generally speaking though, I'm all for people releasing software under whichever license they feel most comfortable with. If you're concerned about OOXML, then Sun are the ones you need to convince to switch to GPLv3, since Sun's OOo3 is the most widely circulated Free OOXML-compatible software out there

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 19:15:44

  @JoShields and @AlexH: Also because of this: --- Why does Novell require a copyright assignment?
  
  When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms.
  
  This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code.
  
  Particularly embedded system vendors obtain grants to the Mono runtime engine and modify it for their own purposes without having to release those changes back. ---

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 19:24:49

  @SubSonica: copyright assignment is a different issue to the license it's using.
  
  Generally I dislike them, but having the code under GPLv3 doesn't get rid of it.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 19:26:25

  @JoShields: "Only works if the people pressing patent claims are also the authors of the software" Ok then. That's better than nothing. And c'mon, don€´t make me laugh. Want to start me? Once again you make another (lame) attempt at deviating the attention to Sun without any reason whatsoever. I feel much more at ease with Sun than with Novell (let alone Microsoft) thank you very much. Sun has not helped Microsoft threatening me with undisclosed liability sheets for not using their MS-endorsed distro, whereas Novell has. Moreover, the only ones to blame for OOXML are MICROSOFT CORPORATION and about OpenOffice.org, it is Novell's fork "GOO" the one incoroporating Microsoft technologies. So its all about Novell and Microsoft once and again. It is Microsoft the ones who infiltrated and corrupted the ISO in order to see the -standard-seal-of-approval-. €¿Did Novell oppose and protest that corruption? It is Novell the ones proposing mono and incorporating copycat Microsoft patented technologies into the free software stream, not Sun, so it is Novell the ones we should DEMAND to change the licence if we perceive a threat and to respect and protect the intention and spirit of Free Software.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 19:32:05

  Why does Novell require a copyright assignment?

  
  
  Copyright assignment is a fairly common thing with corporate-backed projects - Sun require the same for OOo (in order to relicense as proprietary for StarOffice)
  
  I don't see any massive reason not to move any *GPL-2* sections to their 3 equivalents, though I prefer the moves they've been making towards BSD (with Apache 2.0/Ms-PL as BSD-with-patent-relatiation options)

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 19:36:15

  I feel much more at ease with Sun than with Novell (let alone Microsoft) thank you very much. Sun has not helped Microsoft threatening me with undisclosed liability sheets for not using their MS-endorsed distro, whereas Novell has.

  
  
  You can say you feel more at ease, but historically? Sun HAVE made somewhat negaive moves, such as funding SCO and signing a patent covenant with MS. Have they changed? Maybe.
  
  Again, you're free to feel at ease with Sun, but not to rewrite history.
  
  

  Moreover, the only ones to blame for OOXML are MICROSOFT CORPORATION and about OpenOffice.org, it is Novell’s fork “GOO” the one incoroporating Microsoft technologies. So its all about Novell and Microsoft once and again.

  
  
  Go-OO added OOXML to OOo 2.x, Sun added OOXML to OOo 3.x. SUN, I repeat, wrote their own OOXML implementation from scratch for OOo3, nothing to do with Novell. See http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/the_new_microsoft_word_filter
  
  

  It is Novell the ones proposing mono and incorporating copycat Microsoft patented technologies into the free software stream, not Sun, so it is Novell the ones we should DEMAND to change the licence if we perceive a threat and to respect and protect the intention and spirit of Free Software.

  
  
  Well, on the Mono case, that's fair enough - file a sensible request with the Mono team. OOXML, however, you need to talk to Sun.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 20:47:29

  €¿Did Novell oppose and protest that corruption?

  
  
  Novell was pretty much the only 'open source' company that didn't denounce or attempt to stop OOXML. To make matters worse, Novell HELPED them. Microsoft listed Novell as a supporter of OOXML.
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/23/novell-helps-ooxml-2/

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 21:10:56

  Not sure Novell being the 'only' company is entirely true. Different companies supported it to greater/lesser extents; it's not right to characterise it as "everyone else said no to OOXML in any form".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 21:12:44

  "Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as presently written is technically incapable of achieving those goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an ISO Standard that would enable them."

• AlexH

  2008-12-23 21:20:01

  Yeah, and they also said "We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.".
  
  It's not exactly vehement opposition.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 21:21:59

  It’s not exactly vehement opposition.

  
  
  No? Sounds like their "fighting it" to me, almost as hard as when they were paying people to add support for it to OOo

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 21:34:16

  Other statements from Sun were not quite as 'diplomatic' (or gentle). As zoobab might remind you, Tim Bray called this thing "corrupt".
  
  In E-mail I exchanges with Sutor I gained more insight into that 'diplomatic' bulls*. What they say if not always how they feel or think.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 21:40:57

  Companies are made of multiple people with differing opinions? Whatever next, Microsoft not being made from 90,000 Steve Ballmer clones?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 21:43:08

  Bray and Sutor are high seniors.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 21:46:16

  Where did I say they weren't?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 21:48:55

  Nowhere, but that's not the subject anyway.
  
  Once again a post about Mono devolves into your attacks on Sun.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 21:51:50

  No, Roy, once again a post about Mono devolves into an attack on double standards. There's a difference, even if you're incapable of understanding that,

• saulgoode

  2008-12-23 21:53:25

  You can say you feel more at ease, but historically? Sun HAVE made somewhat negaive moves, such as funding SCO and signing a patent covenant with MS. Have they changed? Maybe.

  Sun did not sign a "covenant" with Microsoft, they signed a cross-licensing patent contract not to sue each other. Sun couldn't distribute GPLed software which included Microsoft-patented technology unless the licensing of that technology was passed on to all potential downstream recipients (Section 7 of GPL version 2). There was nothing about the Sun/Microsoft agreement which circumvented the spirit of the General Public License and only contravened the tenets of Free Software to the extent of its insidious effects in asserting the legitimacy of software patents.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:01:14

  Sun did not sign a “covenant” with Microsoft, they signed a cross-licensing patent contract not to sue each other.

  
  
  Nearly - the contract says they can't ask for cash IF they sue each other (should they opt to do so) - they can still C&D over patent violations

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:02:29

  saulgoode, it's easy for them to defend the badness of Mono by attacking the superior alternative.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:08:27

  Superior on which specific grounds?
  
  There are some, I just want to see whether you actually know the differences

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:13:28

  Don't kid yourself. Java is mature technology and the #1 P/L. Mono is a toy mimicking another ripoff of Java.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:20:51

  Let's assume for a second that I didn't get my degree programming almost exclusively in Java for three years, and focus just on your statements. Piece by piece.
  
  

  Don’t kid yourself.

  
  
  One of us knows about both technologies in reasonable detail. I'm not kidding myself over anything.
  
  

  Java is mature technology

  
  
  True.
  
  

  and the #1 P/L.

  
  
  Assuming you mean Java (the language) as compared to Java (the framework), then yes, it's currently the most popular choice. Windows is the most popular choice of desktop OS, and is mature, does that also make it best, Roy?
  
  

  Mono is a toy

  
  
  If that were the case, why would you get so worked up over it? Mono was Free Software for 3-4 years before Java was. In 2005, would you have recommend building software on a proprietary platform like Java?
  
  

  mimicking another ripoff of Java.

  
  
  If you're unable to comprehend the differences between Java and CLI, then that's your failure. Think of CLI as "Java with hindsight", if you want to draw parallels.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:23:19

  You missed that last point, which is a reference to MS .NET.
  
  I too programmed in Java.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:30:10

  You missed that last point, which is a reference to MS .NET.

  
  
  What makes you think I missed it? I replied to it, as with all other points. Perhaps you just don't understand common terms relating to the technology?
  
  

  I too programmed in Java.

  
  
  Well it DOES integrate beautifully into MATLAB.

• SubSonica

  2008-12-23 22:33:34

  Novell helps a convicted monopolist threaten Free Software users and set a protection-racket (extortionating) business against companies using Gnu/Linux. Since when does Sun that?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:35:14

  Since when does Sun that?

  
  
  Since 2003, if you look at the historic data. You're welcome to forgive them, but the evidence is set in stone.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:36:16

  What makes you think I missed it? I replied to it, as with all other points. Perhaps you just don’t understand common terms relating to the technology?

  
  
  I know that both have it. And Mono is poor imitation of another poor imitation.
  
  

  Well it DOES integrate beautifully into MATLAB.

  
  
  Nothing to do with MATLAB.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:37:17

  Since 2003, if you look at the historic data. You’re welcome to forgive them, but the evidence is set in stone.

  
  
  Sun signed a Linux protection deal??? The fiends!11

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:40:00

  I know that both have it. And Mono is poor imitation of another poor imitation.

  
  
  Both have what?
  
  And which specific points make MS.NET generally a "poor imitation"?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:41:25

  Sun signed a Linux protection deal??? The fiends!11

  
  
  So funding SCO's attacks on Linux is fine when Sun do it?
  
  Don't you moan about Baystar doing the same?
  
  Do you even know what "double standards" means, Roy?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:41:47

  The paradigm, for starters. They did request a 'ripoff permission' from Sun, did they not?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:43:00

  So funding SCO’s attacks on Linux is fine when Sun do it?
  
  Don’t you moan about Baystar doing the same?

  
  
  Different thing. Both Microsoft and Sun bought licences from SCO. Baystar has nothing to do with it.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:46:36

  The paradigm, for starters.

  
  
  And which part of following similar paradigms makes it "poor"
  
  Do you actually know anything whatsoever about .NET, Roy?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:48:44

  I know what I need to know and several years back I helped a friend with C#, which was enough of a Java knockoff to be understandable/readable.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:50:03

  C# is not .NET
  
  That's one of the key advantages compared to Java.
  
  But I'm sure you knew that already, right?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 22:51:38

  Yes, of course I knew that.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 22:57:26

  And you know that Java's Generics are garbage compared to C#, yes?
  
  And that JNI is an absolute unusable mess compared to P/Invoke?
  
  And that .NET is not tied to C# the way Java (framework) is tied to Java (language)?
  
  And that unlike Java, enough framework to run a basic app fits into a few meg?
  
  And that CIL apps tend to be significantly less RAM-hungry than their Java equivalents?
  
  You know all these points, right?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 23:09:04

  Some of these are subjective and coming from a Mono booster, promotion of .NET is hardly surprising.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 23:15:32

  "Microsoft Has Been Rigging Votes/Polls for Ages"
  
  So you're asserting I work for Microsoft again?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 23:20:19

  No, but there's a pro-.NET crowd out there 'selling' it to innocent lurkers.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 23:28:09

  So why link to an article entitled "Microsoft Has Been Rigging Votes/Polls for Ages"?
  
  Any idea why some of us might accuse you of distortion?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 23:29:42

  The link's anchor was "promotion of .NET is hardly surprising."

• saulgoode

  2008-12-23 23:31:23

  jo Shields said, Nearly - the contract says they can’t ask for cash IF they sue each other (should they opt to do so) - they can still C&D over patent violations

  My point would be that regardless of what terms the Sun/MS patent deal entailed, since the Sun corporation was a direct beneficiary of the contract, they would be required to pass those terms on with any GPLed software they distributed (more than likely, they would not ship any such patent-encumbered software).
  
  This is distinct from the Novell/MS deal which allows Novell to ship GPLed software encumbered by Microsoft patents and remain compliant with the terms of the GPL (v2).
  
  I would agree that the Sun/MS deal may have had an incidental, "somewhat negative" effect on Free Software, but it is not as though terms in the agreement were targeted at circumventing the GPL. A typical patent cross-licensing contract between corporations is not nearly such an affront to Free Software as is the rather exceptional nature of the Novell/MS "covenant".

• Hephaistos

  2008-12-23 23:31:47

  That's so boring; Roy has evaded to answer any direct questions AGAIN!

  And you know that Java’s Generics are garbage compared to C#, yes?
  
  And that JNI is an absolute unusable mess compared to P/Invoke?
  
  And that .NET is not tied to C# the way Java (framework) is tied to Java (language)?
  
  And that unlike Java, enough framework to run a basic app fits into a few meg?
  
  And that CIL apps tend to be significantly less RAM-hungry than their Java equivalents?

  How can you folks let him get away with answering 'well, yeah, that's subjective, y'know...'?
  
  Slimy like a greased otter, the fellow.

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 23:32:44

  So either you're knowingly linking to irrelevant things in an attempt to fool your more gullible readers into thinking there's a link, or saying its contents are valid, and therefore are accusing me.
  
  Which is it?
  
  Any idea why some of us might accuse you of distortion?

• jo Shields

  2008-12-23 23:35:32

  Slimy like a greased otter, the fellow.

  
  
  Grease would be bad for otter fur, surely?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-12-23 23:46:11

  Slimy like a greased otter, the fellow.

  
  
  G'day to you too, Sir.
  
  

  Which is it?
  
  Any idea why some of us might accuse you of distortion?

  
  
  This was not a distortion, but you chose to perceive it that way. I apologise if that's how it seemed to you.