User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

Posted Jun 5, 2008 2:12 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)
In reply to: Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu by jdub
Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

No one is saying Gnome is in bed with Microsoft, but to say Gnome has no relationship with
Mono and Microsoft is disingenuous at best, and to compare that relationship to KDE and Nokia
is flat wrong.  Microsoft could bring a patent suit against Mono; they can change the API,
they can do any number of things to make Mono a poor country cousin to the city slicker from
Redmond, and that will all cascade into problems for Gnome.  There is no such problem for KDE,
least of all from Nokia.

(Log in to post comments)

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

Posted Jun 5, 2008 6:15 UTC (Thu) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link]

Mono/GNOME and KDE/Nokia are very different, I agree, but I think not in the way you describe.

Nokia *owns* Qt, the foundation of KDE. This is a very close relationship therefore. And it
might have various consequences, for example, Nokia might decide not to allow Qt to be used to
create GPL4-licensed apps when that license comes out (speaking of which, does Qt allow AGPL
apps currently? I can't find a link). Also, Nokia might dramatically raise the cost of
programming proprietary apps in Qt, etc.

Mono has its issues (potential patent matters with Microsoft, copying another system instead
of innovating, etc.), but most of that is irrelevant to GNOME. Very few GNOME apps use Mono,
as I said elsewhere in this discussion, far more GNOME apps use Python for example. So, while
Mono is GNOME-focused (with GTK#, etc.), GNOME is not Mono-focused. Don't blame GNOME for Mono
having GNOME bindings.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

Posted Jun 5, 2008 7:14 UTC (Thu) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link]

Please, don't be deceptive: There is no organisational relationship between GNOME and
Microsoft or GNOME and the Mono project (that said, the principal development entity behind
Mono, Novell, is a member of the GNOME Foundation Advisory Board, but this does not involve or
imply technical influence).

GNOME includes only the Mono bindings and Tomboy in its official release set. New Mono-based
modules and dependencies in existing modules are special-cased in the release team inclusion
policies. This very clearly demonstrates that the GNOME community has not bought into Mono at
a strategic level, and that at any point we could cease shipping any Mono related software in
our regular six-month releases without great concern.

If it became clear through desire or force that the GNOME community could no longer ship the
very small amount Mono related software included in our official releases, we could. Tomorrow.

But right now, it's not clear, no matter what the non-practitioning extremists might want you
to think (note that I'm not including Glyn in that set, but I am disappointed that the
ill-researched and nuance-free ideas of those extremists have spread to bastions of sanity
such as LWN).

Unlike the other poster, I don't believe the KDE/Nokia situation is useful or relevant to this

A bit harsh...

Posted Jun 5, 2008 17:27 UTC (Thu) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link]

Well although it is true that there might be no organisational relationship between GNOME and
$ORGANISATION.  As far as I can see GNOME (and I've been wrong many times before :-( ) is the
only major desktop shipping Mono applications.  

Now I'm a big fan of GNOME and suspect that the patent problems are the usual load of hot air.
But the fact that GNOME is shipping Mono based software seems to me as an outside observer
that GNOME has in fact "bought into" Mono at some level...  

Glyn's question didn't strike me as unreasonable and Shuttleworth's answer was quite
illuminating and I think the flak he is taking reflects more the sensitivity over this issue
rather than anything objectionable about the interview.  

Of course my contribution to the free software world has been to program as little as
possible, thereby significantly raising the average standard of code produced so what do I

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted Jun 10, 2008 21:42 UTC (Tue) by Kamujin (guest, #52482) [Link]

I find it funny how close minded people are being about the benefits of C# and Mono just
because of its source.

I understand skepticism. I don't understand irrational fear.

I understand engagement. I don't understand isolationism.

Which camp are you in?

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted Jun 10, 2008 23:54 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

When one company has spent decades building up their reputation as someone not to be trusted,
it is only surprising that gullible people pop up now and again to trust them.

It isn't Mono and C# that are the questionable items, it is the company behind them, who have
made plenty of noise about enforcing their patents on those items.  Address that issue, and
perhaps then you will have some cred.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted Jun 11, 2008 12:55 UTC (Wed) by Kamujin (guest, #52482) [Link]

I agree that MS has earned its bad reputation.

I think your response proves my point though. I am not aware of any real patent issues that
exist with Mono and C#. If there are issues, then there should be debate and action taken to
correct them. I don't hear real issues being raised. I just hear a lot of anti-MS rhetoric.

If your just going to dismiss a really good technology because you don't like who invented it,
I think your making a mistake.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted Jun 16, 2008 12:31 UTC (Mon) by occ (guest, #38482) [Link]

>"Which camp are you in?"

I'm in the anti- "false dichotomy fallacy" camp. (1)

"I find it funny how close minded people are being about the benefits of C# and Mono just
because of its source."

I find it sad how gold-fish-memory like people are being about the said 'source'. Heck the
recent story of another of their ECMA so-called-standard  - pushed down ISO with corruption,
pressures, ballot stuffing and plain smear campaigns - should alone give any rational person

(1) "you are either with me or against me" (a brilliant early 21th century philosopher circa
(2) "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you, fool me twice ... euh. fool me I can't get
fooled again" (same brilliant early 21th century mind, circa 2006)

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted Jun 16, 2008 16:12 UTC (Mon) by Kamujin (guest, #52482) [Link]

I think your being extreme.

"Trust but verify" is what I am advocating. Not blind acceptance. And certainly not the "I'm
smarter then the world" attitude that is the logical implication of your disengaged viewpoint.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds