-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Removing Mono from Ubuntu 10.04
,----[ Quote ]
| One of the most controversial entities (for
| lack of a better word) in the Linux world
| today is Mono. I won't go into a lot of detail
| here, because I would prefer to avoid yet
| another shouting match about it - there are
| plenty of those around, if you care to take
| part in one. What I will do here is simply
| present the command necessary to purge Mono
| and anything that depends on it from the
| Ubuntu Lucid Lynx distribution.
|
| [...]
|
| If you are interested in why one might want to
| banish Mono, one place to look would be the
| Mono-Nono web site.
`----
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jamies-random-musings-10006480/removing-mono-from-ubuntu-1004-10015668/
Recent:
Python + Django vs. C# + ASP.NET: Productivity Showdown
http://kurtgrandis.com/blog/2010/02/24/python-django-vs-c-asp-net-productivity-showdown/
1 Django Developer = 2 C# ASP.NET Developers
,----[ Quote ]
| Given equal-sized teams, Django allowed our
| developers to be twice as productive as our
| ASP.NET team.
`----
http://www.the-source.com/2010/04/1-django-developer-2-c-asp-net-developers/
Matt Zimmerman on Mono
,----[ Quote ]
| There are risks in choosing the .NET
| platform to develop free software. And I am
| pleased that Mr. Zimmerman realizes that is
| exactly what Mono is: the .NET platform
| (albeit a gimped and tail-lights chasing
| stepchild implementation).
|
| I also greatly appreciate Mr. Zimmermanâs
| points :
|
| * Microsoft is in âultimate controlâ
| (despite Team Apologistaâs desperate
| protestations)
| * Microsoft has multiple ways to wield
| .NET offensively
| * It would be logical for them to do so
| * they have acted similarly in the past
| * they have said they would act
| similarly the future.
`----
http://www.the-source.com/2010/04/matt-zimmerman-on-mono/
Considerations on Patents that Read on Language Infrastructure
,----[ Quote ]
| In an essay last Friday entitled Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono
| or C#, RMS argued a key point that I agree with: the software freedom
| community should minimize its use of programming language infrastructure that
| comes primarily from anti-software-freedom companies, notwithstanding FaiF
| (Free as in Freedom) implementations. I've been thinking about an extension
| of that argument: that language infrastructure created in a community process
| is likely more resilient against attacks from proprietary software companies.
`----
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2009/jun/29/language-patents/
Discouraging FOSS
,----[ Quote ]
| I think it is interesting that he thinks that it is the ââbest technologyâ
| Linux campâ that is the camp that offers the greatest threat to Microsoft. I
| can understand why some may think that this is true since this camp is
| creating flashy and very useful products and features that increase the
| appeal of Linux. However, mono is not the only tool that the ââbest
| technologyâ Linux campâ has at its disposal. Many view the use of the Qt
| toolkit as a better alternative, and one that does not have the risk
| associated with mono. Furthermore, I do not agree with the thought
| that ââbest technologyâ Linux campâ is the one that Microsoft feels most
| threatened by. I think Microsoft is only threatened by the combination of
| both camps.
|
| I view mono as a distraction for FOSS developers. Yes, there are some
| practical advantages in its use, but there are a lot of questions surrounding
| it. It has the potential of dividing the two mayor camps of Linux
| contributors. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this
| controversy.
`----
http://temporaryland.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/discouraging-foss/
Should Qt and KDE apps written in C# be considered Free Software?
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3992
Stallman: open-source .NET "danger" for Debian
,----[ Quote ]
| Although Stallman frequently speaks about the dangers of software patents on
| open-source, trust for Microsoft has run particularly thin recently because
| of the company's legal attack on TomTom over a FAT patent dispute.
|
| Stallman urged the community to instead distribute and recommend non-C#
| applications whenever possible to avoid Redmond lawyers from being able to
| disable major OS functions on a whim.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/29/richard_stallman_cautions_against_mono_in_free_software/
How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu
http://www.learningubuntu.com/articles/how-completely-remove-mono-ubuntu
Will Microsoft threaten open source C# implementations?
,----[ Quote ]
| If Microsoft is threatening patents against .NET, it would seem to me that
| the Novell/Microsoft relationship didnât really work out all that well. And
| now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open
| source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made?
| Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal
| with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back
| again and again and again?
`----
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=716
Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#
,----[ Quote ]
| Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake
| of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a
| risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage
| its use.
|
| The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise
| the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force
| all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See
| http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only
| fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take
| precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.
|
| This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C#
| implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms,
| which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called
| Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all
| languages that programmers have used.
|
| The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other
| applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too.
| That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using
| them is taking a gratuitous risk.
|
| We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as
| little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing
| programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the
| default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and
| recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever
| possible.
`----
http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkvlomoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7eoQCdHjBy+DySRNrfI04hOPBraQzQ
vzIAn1AFwK9C//nlrJx8hQgi+N1C4drl
=I1YT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
