PDA

View Full Version : mono out of fedora yet ?



neighborlee
5th September 2007, 11:57 PM
I have zero intention to start a flame fest , sodont bother replying if that is your intent as this is a reasoned serious question:

http://wtogami.livejournal.com/11305.html

Is this discussion about OIN not containing protection for .NET true ?

I am wondering because atm I dont have fedora 7 installed..was thinking about it, but only if mono isn't here on any level, so I thought it prudent to ask here to verify what I read at that URL is true ..

cheers and thank you
nl

ButteBlues
6th September 2007, 12:01 AM
Quite simply, Mono is safe to use and have.

The potential pitfalls of it are nothing more than FUD spread by a bunch of paranoid users who don't comprehend what an implementation of an ECMA standard means.

tme_1
6th September 2007, 12:34 AM
Well maybe you could explain it to us, as there are many people worried about M$ invasion of gnome and FSF

RupertPupkin
6th September 2007, 04:00 AM
Quite simply, Mono is safe to use and have.

The potential pitfalls of it are nothing more than FUD spread by a bunch of paranoid users who don't comprehend what an implementation of an ECMA standard means.
And I don't think you comprehend that Mono includes more than just the parts covered in the ECMA standard for C# and the CLI, like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms. Those are proprietary extensions that Microsoft has patented, and which Mono has included (for "compatibility" reasons). Even the Mono team acknowledges the potential patent issue with including those parts in Mono:
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents

Wayne
6th September 2007, 04:04 AM
I posted somewhere else that removing mono takes very little else with it. On my system, for example:

Removing:
mono-core i386 1.2.3-3.fc7 installed 31 M
Removing for dependencies:
f-spot i386 0.3.5-2.fc7 installed 6.3 M
gmime-sharp i386 2.2.3-5.fc7 installed 193 k
gnome-sharp i386 2.16.0-3.fc7 installed 1.7 M
gtk-sharp2 i386 2.10.0-4.fc7 installed 2.2 M
mono-data i386 1.2.3-3.fc7 installed 4.8 M
mono-data-sqlite i386 1.2.3-3.fc7 installed 161 k
mono-web i386 1.2.3-3.fc7 installed 7.4 M
mono-winforms i386 1.2.3-3.fc7 installed 8.5 M
sysinfo i386 0.7-1 installed 336 k
tomboy i386 0.6.1-1.fc7 installed 2.9 M

Wayne

neighborlee
6th September 2007, 05:36 AM
Quite simply, Mono is safe to use and have.

The potential pitfalls of it are nothing more than FUD spread by a bunch of paranoid users who don't comprehend what an implementation of an ECMA standard means.

To say we are paranoid users is to ignore the seeming facts which indicate that .NET isn't included as part of the OIN.

It matters not now, with the onset of 'vala' ;)

cheers
nl

sojourner
6th September 2007, 01:25 PM
it is not being paranoid to say "someone is out to get me" when someone IS out to get you. And MS is out to get us.Balmer was making threats before the ink was dry on the Novell deal , when someone threatens to shoot me I don't hand them a gun , if thats paranoid I guess I am.

ButteBlues
13th September 2007, 03:03 AM
And I don't think you comprehend that Mono includes more than just the parts covered in the ECMA standard for C# and the CLI, like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms. Those are proprietary extensions that Microsoft has patented, and which Mono has included (for "compatibility" reasons). Even the Mono team acknowledges the potential patent issue with including those parts in Mono:
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Patents

If you want to take that route, there are parts of the Linux kernel and probably GNU as well that "infringe" on patents - but then again, software patents are a patently silly idea to begin with.


To say we are paranoid users is to ignore the seeming facts which indicate that .NET isn't included as part of the OIN.

It matters not now, with the onset of 'vala' ;)

cheers
nl

Vala is nice and all, but I really don't see the point. One of the advantages of Mono was cross-platform support - which Vala kind of forgets.


it is not being paranoid to say "someone is out to get me" when someone IS out to get you. And MS is out to get us.Balmer was making threats before the ink was dry on the Novell deal , when someone threatens to shoot me I don't hand them a gun , if thats paranoid I guess I am.

Ballmer has been making threats for as long as he has had any sort of public image to stand on. Just because some companies are working with Microsoft does not suddenly change Ballmer's big talk into an actual threat towards yourself.

RupertPupkin
13th September 2007, 04:34 AM
If you want to take that route, there are parts of the Linux kernel and probably GNU as well that "infringe" on patents - but then again, software patents are a patently silly idea to begin with.
Ah, so you do now admit that Mono is more than just "an implementation of an ECMA standard", which is how you tried to characterize it earlier, eh? ;)

As far as the comparison to "parts of the Linux kernel", can you point me to a patented technology that the Linux kernel developers deliberately copied? Here's one that the Mono team deliberately copied, which covers the ADO.NET namespace and parts of ASP.NET:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6920461.PN.&OS=PN/6920461%3Cbr%20/%3E&RS=PN/6920461

The Mono team knew that ADO.NET and ASP.NET were patented Microsoft extensions (they even admit this in their FAQ, which I linked to before) and they still went ahead and put them in Mono anyway. That's just stupid. Of course, they say that if Microsoft does raise a fuss about it they'll "work around" the issue somehow. Basically, they want Mono users to trust Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer has been making threats for as long as he has had any sort of public image to stand on. Just because some companies are working with Microsoft does not suddenly change Ballmer's big talk into an actual threat towards yourself.
Judging from this, it appears you also want us to trust Steve Ballmer not to sue. You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust him or anyone else at Microsoft.

kirios
13th September 2007, 08:22 AM
Is it true that mono is not included in RHEL?

ButteBlues
13th September 2007, 12:29 PM
Ah, so you do now admit that Mono is more than just "an implementation of an ECMA standard", which is how you tried to characterize it earlier, eh? ;)

While it implements the ECMA standard, some things that had to be implemented for compatibility reasons obviously conflict with patents, but again, such patents are silly and in those countries intelligent enough to not recognize software patents, it's very much a non-issue.


Judging from this, it appears you also want us to trust Steve Ballmer not to sue. You'll have to excuse me if I don't trust him or anyone else at Microsoft.

I'm saying that there is no way in hell he or Microsoft could feasibly sue anyone besides Novell, who they've already cut a deal with. Mono is distributed and made by Novell - not by Red Hat or Canonical, et al. The very idea that Microsoft would even attempt to sue individual users in this respect is a laugh and a half - it is not at all legally feasible.

bob
13th September 2007, 12:37 PM
Just as a suggestion, but for those who are truly concerned about the possibility of violations, here's the list of distros that the FSF endorses: http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html . Interesting that BLAG is on that list, and of course BLAG is a fork of Fedora.

sojourner
13th September 2007, 12:53 PM
Ballmer has been making threats for as long as he has had any sort of public image to stand on. Just because some companies are working with Microsoft does not suddenly change Ballmer's big talk into an actual threat towards yourself.

Balmer is just the current "head of the snake" Microsofth has very long history of not trying to out compete the competition but to destroy them by any means possible . They are big , powerful ,and have repeatedly proved themselves to be utterly unethical to expect them to suddenly play nice is to believe in the tooth fairy.

tme_1
13th September 2007, 01:26 PM
Even if they can't sue,can't they demand royalties?So this means what?That Suse can only use mono,which gives it an advantage because of cross platform compatibility that the other nixes (RH),and Sun won't have.And won't this kind of fork Gnome?

RahulSundaram
13th September 2007, 01:48 PM
I have zero intention to start a flame fest , sodont bother replying if that is your intent as this is a reasoned serious question:

http://wtogami.livejournal.com/11305.html

Is this discussion about OIN not containing protection for .NET true ?

I am wondering because atm I dont have fedora 7 installed..was thinking about it, but only if mono isn't here on any level, so I thought it prudent to ask here to verify what I read at that URL is true ..

cheers and thank you
nl

Just to point out that the comments in the post you are pointing out is a misunderstanding of what OIN does. Red Hat is a founding member of OIN. OIN doesn't license any .NET specific patents nor do they need to. They have some important patents they will license for no cost in exchange for any organization that promises not to attack what they refer to as a "Linux system" and this includes mono. The idea behind is it to form a defensive patent tool to wade off patent threats.

For more details on what OIN does refer to

http://gregdek.livejournal.com/3597.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network

neighborlee
20th September 2007, 09:00 AM
Just to point out that the comments in the post you are pointing out is a misunderstanding of what OIN does. Red Hat is a founding member of OIN. OIN doesn't license any .NET specific patents nor do they need to. They have some important patents they will license for no cost in exchange for any organization that promises not to attack what they refer to as a "Linux system" and this includes mono. The idea behind is it to form a defensive patent tool to wade off patent threats.

For more details on what OIN does refer to

http://gregdek.livejournal.com/3597.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6025387-7.html < this begs the question though .....

"At this time, Red Hat has no plans for the endorsement or productization of Mono.",,

unless something has changed...if so I'd like to know what prompted their decision at that time to have no plans to endorse mono.

cheers
nl

RahulSundaram
20th September 2007, 01:34 PM
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6025387-7.html < this begs the question though .....

"At this time, Red Hat has no plans for the endorsement or productization of Mono.",,

unless something has changed...if so I'd like to know what prompted their decision at that time to have no plans to endorse mono.

cheers
nl

Read the article completely. Nothing has changed. Fedora having any package is completely unrelated to Red Hat endorsing anything for their products.

neighborlee
4th March 2008, 09:39 PM
Read the article completely. Nothing has changed. Fedora having any package is completely unrelated to Red Hat endorsing anything for their products.

"The Fedora Foundation is a community of users who have a common interest in many technologies. Mono is a technology of interest to this community and the group has decided to include Mono in Fedora Core 5. Much like Fedora promotes choice with other technologies (an example is including both KDE and GNOME ), including Mono is another demonstration of choice being offered in Fedora," Red Hat said. "At this time, Red Hat has no plans for the endorsement or productization of Mono."

the last part of this paragraph is what I was getting at..why does redhat have no plans of endorsing MONO ?

cheers
nl

RahulSundaram
4th March 2008, 09:46 PM
Hi,

In general, only a small subset of Fedora goes into RHEL based on actual demands from paying customers. Everything that goes into RHEL has to be supported and maintained for a much longer time period so it helps to very much selective. The needs for enterprise customers vary significantly from typical Fedora users. That's the reason there are two different distributions after all. Beyond that, you have to ask that question to Red Hat.

neighborlee
4th March 2008, 09:50 PM
Hi,

In general, only a small subset of Fedora goes into RHEL based on actual demands from paying customers. Everything that goes into RHEL has to be supported and maintained for a much longer time period so it helps to very much selective. The needs for enterprise customers vary significantly from typical Fedora users. That's the reason there are two different distributions after all. Beyond that, you have to ask that question to Red Hat.

Okay thank you very much for your answer.

cheers
nl