LWN: Comments on "Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu"

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

tracyanne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:24:30 +0000

quote:While the Mono team deserves all the
respect for what they have built, I think a lot of people have trouble fully supporting a
development platform that is essentially a clone of a proprietary MS technology. 

And then there's WINE.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

tracyanne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:52:11 +0000

quote:While the Mono team deserves all the
respect for what they have built, I think a lot of people have trouble fully supporting a
development platform that is essentially a clone of a proprietary MS technology. 

SaMBa anyone. Or have people forgotten that SaMBa is a clone of SMB/CIFS, and guess who's
proprietary technology that is.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

damien — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:28:02 +0000

His answer regarding GNOME/Mono/Microsoft was excellent. While the Mono team deserves all the
respect for what they have built, I think a lot of people have trouble fully supporting a
development platform that is essentially a clone of a proprietary MS technology. The issue is
not so much whether Mono is patent-encumbered or not, but that the primary implementation of
the .NET stack is not open source and that it is controlled by an organization that is
determined to "defeat" FOSS. Like Mark Shuttleworth puts it, we're then just "chasing someone
else's coat tails", and we can do better than that.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Kamujin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:12:10 +0000

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.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

occ — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:31:21 +0000

>"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
pause.(2)



(1) "you are either with me or against me" (a brilliant early 21th century philosopher circa
2001.)
(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.

Kamujin — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:55:07 +0000

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.

felixfix — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:54:21 +0000

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.

Kamujin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:42:48 +0000

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?

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

salimma — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:03:03 +0000

Regarding C code generation, C++ compilers were for many years just C pre-processors like Vala is now. Vala is just younger (and prettier) language than C++, just give it time and it may grow into a real compiler like C++ compilers did. Whether we need yet another language is another matter...

There is a difference: Cfront *defines* its own object model, and because the C code it produces is not supposed to have a stable interface, it's easy to abandon C-code generation in favour of a full-blown compiler.

Vala, by design, targets the GObject type system (letting users write GObject applications much more naturally than writing them in C). I don't think we'll ever get to a situation where valac's backend does not actually generate straight C code..

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

amazingblair — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:33:44 +0000

I second the nomination, and hereby suggest that LWN adopt a
"Reader Comment of the Week" Award
for meritorious verbality. (ooh! "meritorious verbality" -- that was good right there!) :-)

-Amazing Blair

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:24:05 +0000

Actually the Linux kernel is close enough to what I want: I can write userspace apps using any
license and run them on the Linux kernel. It's like the LGPL in that respect. That is, only if
I want to extend the kernel itself do I have license issues - which is the same situation with
GTK+, which is LGPL.

In other words, that the Linux kernel stays GPL2 doesn't matter to me, unless I want to extend
the kernel itself. Same as with GTK (which is also GPL2 last I checked, and again, it doesn't
matter unless I extend GTK itself).

This is the reason I prefer GTK and the Linux kernel's approach to licensing over Qt's (for
libraries/frameworks, at least. For normal apps, other licenses might be better).

Example of Ubuntu replacing Windows

Cato — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:01:43 +0000

As it happens, I switched an 80-year old relative from Windows XP to Ubuntu last weekend. This
was done at short notice because the power supply in her XP PC was failing, and I happened to
have an old laptop spare that was running Xubuntu.

My relative is doing fine with Ubuntu, and there's really very little to learn as the main
applications (Firefox and Thunderbird) are identical - she's not a power user at all, simply
needing a few basic apps.

The differences between Windows and Xubuntu really don't matter to this person, as long as
everything works. I could have done the same thing with KDE or GNOME, I'm sure, but I already
had Xubuntu installed and XFCE works OK in 192 MB RAM. I did spend a bit of time making the
XFCE setup look like Windows, with a Start menu at the bottom, but that's not exactly
difficult.

The huge benefit is that now I can remotely administer the machine using either SSH or VNC
(over SSH, using the excellent x11vnc, ), and quickly fix any problems as they occur. This
was very hard to keep working on Windows for some problem. Also, all the Ubuntu applications
get security-updated automatically (thanks to "aptitude install unattended-upgrades"), rather
than the apps remaining insecure until my next visit.

On the proprietary driver point - as it happens this laptop doesn't need any proprietary
drivers, but if there was a need for this due to WiFi or graphics, it would be a deal-blocker
if only open source drivers were available. I'm a pragmatist like Mark Shuttleworth on this -
if a PC is 'only' 99% open source due to proprietary drivers, it still creates more demand for
Linux-supported hardware, and in the long run the proprietary drivers can more likely be
dumped as a result, compared to leaving the PC on XP where everything is closed sources.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

and — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:13:52 +0000

> I'm not familiar with MySQL, but OpenOffice is LGPL, not GPL;       
furthermore, OpenOffice is an app, not a framework like Qt. For both of       
these reasons I see little or no cause for concern if Sun should change       
OpenOffice's license to some other FOSS license. That is, if I want to       
write a plugin for OpenOffice using the GPL4, I will have no problem.        
       
if you are really this much concerned about not being able to use       
not-yet-existing OSS licenses and about being able to write proprietary    
derivate works without a payment, you really should be using a BSD instead    
of the linux kernel: Even if there  was desire to switch to GPLv3, linux    
is still stuck to the GPL v2 until _every_ contributor agreed on    
relicensing or alternatively every single line of code from authors who    
haven't agreed is removed.     
     
on the other hand you will always be able to use/fork/remix all versions  
of Qt with (A)GPLv(2|3) code and link it to any code which uses one of the       
licenses mentioned in Qt's GPL exception. Also if you want to use your 
code with a newer license you can still dual-license it.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

filipjoelsson — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:37:32 +0000

I hereby nominate the parent comment to the (as yet non-existing) award: Reader comment of the
week!

Anyway, I'd really like such i feature... :)

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:57:31 +0000

That's good to know about the AGPL, thanks for the information.

Should Nokia become less cooperative than Trolltech has historically been, this might be very problematic.
this is true for any project which requires copyright assignments: OpenOffice and MySql come to mind.

I don't think copyright assignments is the issue.

I'm not familiar with MySQL, but OpenOffice is LGPL, not GPL; furthermore, OpenOffice is an app, not a framework like Qt. For both of these reasons I see little or no cause for concern if Sun should change OpenOffice's license to some other FOSS license. That is, if I want to write a plugin for OpenOffice using the GPL4, I will have no problem.

A more relevant comparison is GTK, which is a framework like Qt. GTK being LGPL, I have no worries about writing GTK apps in my FOSS license of choice in the future.

But they can't revoke the licensing of the current version including the GPL exception which means that they can't prevent forks.

The problem is that no fork can add additional licenses, so if e.g. Nokia decides not to allow Qt apps to be written in GPL4, then no forking can help with that. We will be stuck in perpetuity with the last list of licenses Nokia has allowed us to use.

Also, there is still the QtFreeFoundation (or however it is was called again) which where is effectively controlled by the KDE community (KDE e.v ??) and has the right to release Qt under a BSD license if Trolltech "misbehaves".

This does not solve the problems I've mentioned. Nokia can continue to release Qt regularly while not allowing the GPL4, and Qt will not revert to a BSD license. "Misbehaves", as defined in that agreement, doesn't cover the problems that concern me.

(Also, it isn't Trolltech anymore, but Nokia ;) )

Look Grandma! same shit as windows

nlucas — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:07:48 +0000

For your grandma there is no difference even if you lose an hour explaining it.

The only difference for her is if things work or not.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

and — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:48:19 +0000

> The problem is that you can't use all the FOSS licenses, you depend on 
Nokia agreeing to your using them. For example, last I heard the AGPL 
wasn't permissible

Explicitly listing the AGPL is actually not necessary, since according to 

http://doc.trolltech.com/main-snapshot/license-gpl-except...

Qt is also licensed under GPLv3. In section 13 the GPLv3 states that "you 
have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed 
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License".

> Should Nokia become less cooperative than Trolltech has historically 
been, this might be very problematic.

this is true for any project which requires copyright assignments: 
OpenOffice and MySql come to mind. But they can't revoke the licensing of  
the current version including the GPL exception which means that they 
can't prevent forks. Also, there is still the QtFreeFoundation (or however 
it is was called again) which where is effectively controlled by the KDE 
community (KDE e.v ??) and has the right to release Qt under a BSD license 
if Trolltech "misbehaves". So, I really don't think there is any danger of 
losing the toolkit, not even for proprietary applications.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

oak — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:06:45 +0000

> The only C++ compiler I've ever heard of that used a C compiler as its  
code generator was Cfront

I have some faint recollections that some other C++ compilers were derived 
from that and then there was also Glockenspiel C++ and stuff using the EDG 
C++ frontend like Comeau C++.


> (and even that was quite unusual: it wasn't a preprocessor in any sense, 
in that it did full translation and just  happened to emit C code:

Yes, sorry my terminology was bad.  But isn't this also how Vala works?

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:21:27 +0000

I always thought Gnome was started because Qt/Kde were not considered free enough

Yes, historically GTK was (at least in part) a response to licensing issues with Qt. Most (but not all) of those issues have meanwhile been resolved.

given the fact that Qt is GPL and you're can use basically any other FOSS license in conjunction with Qt as long as you keep providing the source, I don't get the point about licensing differences.

The problem is that you can't use all the FOSS licenses, you depend on Nokia agreeing to your using them. For example, last I heard the AGPL wasn't permissible (but perhaps this has changed?), and when the GPL4 comes out, there is no guarantee that Qt apps can be written using it. Should Nokia become less cooperative than Trolltech has historically been, this might be very problematic. It's hard to gauge how likely this danger is - probably not very much - but the risk is large enough to cause concern.

GNOME/GTK avoid this sort of problem entirely, by licensing the GNOME libraries under the LGPL.

I think a free desktop should be all about free software and shouldn't worry too much about how much proprietary developers have to pay for a development license.

I tend to agree with this, for the most part, but as I argued above the issue that concerns me is that Qt's licensing has potential risks for FOSS developers. If Nokia legally committed itself to allowing Qt apps to be written in any OSI or FSF-approved license, I would be happy, but that is not the case.

In my opinion gnome should come with a few Qt apps (also KDE should come with a few gtk apps, but that's a different story) if these applications blend sufficiently well into the 'alien' desktop environment...

Well, I'm in agreement - we should all collaborate as much as possible, when it makes sense. The issue is that (sadly) generally the apps don't blend in seamlessly. But perhaps this will improve in time.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

and — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:06:39 +0000

> Ok, I am not up-to-date on the specifics of Qt, it seems. It sounds better    than I
thought. That said, it still isn't a good fit for GNOME, since it doesn't natively support the
GObject system in its syntax, which is the whole purpose of Vala. Also, it's licensing is very
different from the GNOME approach.

I always thought Gnome was started because Qt/Kde were not considered free enough. given the
fact that Qt is GPL and you're can use basically any other FOSS license in conjunction with Qt
as long as you keep providing the source, I don't get the point about licensing differences. I
think a free desktop should be all about free software and shouldn't worry too much about how
much proprietary developers have to pay for a development license. 

Maybe my original comment was also a bit ambiguous: I didn't argue in favour of Gnome dropping
GTK or anything, I just wanted to point out that for Gnome there is not much difference from
bundling C#/Mono apps from bundling Qt/C++ apps when it comes to technical considerations
(basically both live within their own separate ecosystem).In my opinion gnome should come with
a few Qt apps (also KDE should come with a few gtk apps, but that's a different story) if
these applications  blend sufficiently well into the 'alien' desktop environment...

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

nix — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:55:31 +0000

The only C++ compiler I've ever heard of that used a C compiler as its 
code generator was Cfront (and even that was quite unusual: it wasn't a 
preprocessor in any sense, in that it did full translation and just 
happened to emit C code: that C could would never contain e.g. any syntax 
errors unless Cfront was buggy).

Look Grandma! same shit as windows

stock — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:34:21 +0000

Shuttleworth :

But we are willing to put in drivers that are not yet open source, because we figure it's more important to give everybody's grandma the opportunity to actually run free software applications on a free software environment, even if they need some proprietary drivers to get their hardware going. That puts us squarely in the pragmatist camp rather than the purist camp.

This way Linux becomes the worst of both worlds. An open source distro which still has the potential weaknesses which come with these proprietary drivers. AND your Grandma still has to learn Linux to get the same out of it as Windows. Makes me wonder what Mark Shuttleworth is actually contributing here.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

oak — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:29:24 +0000

Once you can interact with www-services only through MS Silverlight[1], 
like some services currently can be used only with Flash, your 
interoperability argument becomes moot...

[1] e.g. Nokia has announced that its S60 phones are going to support it, 
so it seems to be spreading.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

oak — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:23:34 +0000

Regarding C code generation, C++ compilers were for many years just C 
pre-processors like Vala is now.  Vala is just younger (and prettier)  
language than C++, just give it time and it may grow into a real compiler 
like C++ compilers did.  Whether we need yet another language is another 
matter...

As to Gtk/Gobject and Qt, having programmed a little bit with both, 
there's much less difference between Gtk and Qt that with C and C++.  If 
you know Gtk & C, Qt itself is not a problem, but C++[1] can be.  Like 
Perl, it's a bit of a line noise compared to better designed languages 
(better designed meaning orthogonality etc, not performance & 
practicality).

[1] and Qt's moc variant of C++ with its magic defines.

A bit harsh...

grantingram — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:27:02 +0000

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
know!

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:09:31 +0000

Well, given your and others' suspicion, I guess such a FAQ entry is warranted. I'm just
surprised, because it's about as justified as a FAQ entry explaining the 'relationship'
between GNOME and Python, or GNOME and GCC, etc. etc.

In other words, the FAQ entry should read:


Q: What is the relationship between GNOME and Mono?

A: No special relationship exists.

There is a very small number of GNOME apps utilizing Mono. The programmers of those apps chose
to use Mono, and GNOME sees no reason to reject their work just because of that, just as we
accept apps into GNOME (if they are worthy) that are written in Python, C, C++, Perl, etc.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

erwbgy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:52:23 +0000

You quote from the Mono FAQ. But, unsurprisingly, there is no corresponding entry in the GNOME FAQ (that I am aware of, at least).

I think such an entry regarding Mono in the GNOME FAQ would go a long way to addressing concerns from some of the community about the relationship between Microsoft, Mono and GNOME.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

deep64blue — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:05:18 +0000

Anyone who cares about Linux and is not deeply suspicious of the whole Mono / Gnome thing is
crazy IMO.  I think the question was absolutely right and Mark's response a good one - be
alert and have a back-up plan is a solid strategy.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:52:06 +0000

Actually my point was that the existence of Vala is an indication that Gnome at least has deeper ties to Mono and C# than for example to Qt and C++ for some non-technical reason which is not obvious to me.

Actually this implies the opposite to me. The only similarity between Vala and Mono/C# is some of the syntax, and that's it (and while C# is a main source of inspiration for the syntax, so is Java, etc.). Vala doesn't use the Mono VM (or any VM), it doesn't use the .Net class library, and it's syntax is first and foremost meant to implement GObject conveniently. Also, if GNOME really liked Mono, it wouldn't bother with Vala. In fact Vala might seem at first antagonistic to Mono, which is why the Vala FAQ goes to great efforts to clarify that it's goal is not to duel with Mono.

(a) the generated code basically becomes unreadable by mere mortals, so using vala parts in C projects (and vince versa) is much harder than necessary

No, you should *never* need to look at the generated code (just as you don't look at generated assembler by GCC). When integrating Vala and C/GObject, you should have the files describing the API (.vapi, etc.), which describe the GObject overview, and are very clear and human-readable. You would use them. In fact one main goal of Vala, if not *the* goal, is to facilitate such convenient interoperability between Vala and C/GObject, e.g., writing libraries in Vala that are used by C/GObject, etc.

(b) what happens if the underlying C libraries (gtk, say) change their interfaces or even just the semantics? Then the vala to c translator always produces incorrect code which you can only fix by hacking the translator. this problem won't occur if the toolkit is used directly from within the language it is written in.

Well, if the interfaces change a little then the bindings for Vala need to change as well (the same goes for PyGTK). Note that you don't need to change the Vala compiler in this case, just the .vapi files that describe the language bindings. I guess in theory a more 'deep' change to GTK might necessitate changing the compiler - by a 'deep' change I mean one in which the semantics of GObject itself change - however, in that case you'd need to change C/GObject programs using GTK as well.

(d) to my knowledge it is very difficult to use debuggers such as gdb using vala's aproach since you would have to wade through the generated C code (on the other hand real programmers don't need debuggers anyway ;).

I agree with you, this is a very valid concern, it's a disadvantage of the approach. Perhaps in theory you might insert debug information that makes it better, but it'll never be quite as smooth as it should be. (And even debugging in C is cumbersome compared to debugging a VM-ed language like Python or Java.)

On the Qt/C++ side of the fence there has been (semi) automatic memory management by means of the Q*Pointer and various Container classes for an eternity (read: Qt 2.0), it has a nice foreach statement since 4.2 (IIRC), always had a very nice event notification mechanism and so on. Also you can use any C or C++ library out there without too much of a hassle. For all these reasons vala seems to be redundant from a technology perspective to me.

Ok, I am not up-to-date on the specifics of Qt, it seems. It sounds better than I thought. That said, it still isn't a good fit for GNOME, since it doesn't natively support the GObject system in its syntax, which is the whole purpose of Vala. Also, it's licensing is very different from the GNOME approach.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

glynmoody — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:46:55 +0000

As for Samba, see the comment lower down.  I'm not quite sure which OpenGL patents you're
referring to: if you could please specify, I'll try to comment.  The FAT patents look likely
to be thrown out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_allocation_table#Appeal).

Other non-GNOME distributions could certainly have Mono, but it wouldn't be very natural.
Part of my point about the relationship between GNOME and Mono is that it *is* very natural to
install the latter, even if there is no formal link between the projects.

As for bigotry, I'm not quite sure where my obstinacy or intolerance lies.  It's certainly not
in my attitude to GNOME, which I use on all my main machines.  I'm just pointing out that
there are issues that are worth exploring in this area, which is what I tried to do with Mark
Shuttleworth, since his perspective would obviously be interesting and important.  I don't
think that's bigotry.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

jschrod — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:41:44 +0000

> The question was really about whether Ubuntu was so committed to GNOME
> that it would be implicated in any such problems

Well, that's actually a very good and interesting question. But I'll have to say that, for me,
the question came not across with that semantic. So you might have a communication problem in
your article. :-)

Concerning your 1st paragraph: For risk assessment of patent dangers, it is not relevant why a
technology is cloned. That it is cloned is all that matters. FTR, I actually think that patent
attacks against both technologies don't have any practical chance to arrive, it's more fudder
for FUD than for actual law suits. My reasons for this opinion are neither legal nor
technological, but from a business viewpoint. Patent attacks just don't make business sense
for MS, but patent FUD does. And we in the OSS community should not increase the FUD that
emanates from MS, IMHO.

But then, I live in one of those jurisdictions where software patents are (still) not allowed,
so maybe I can be more relaxed than others on the American side of the pond.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

glynmoody — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:29:16 +0000

Samba reverse-engineers for the sake of interoperability, in order to work in a world where
Microsoft's protocols are widely used, not because it's great technology; it's a moot point
whether that's really infringing on Microsoft's patents, leaving aside that such patents
aren't even valid in certain jurisdictions.  Mono reverse-engineers Microsoft technology in
order to use it because the Mono team think it's useful to do so, and that the technology is
worth porting.

I don't think my comments about Mono are hypocritical.  I focussed on GNOME and Mono because I
was interviewing the man behind Ubuntu, which uses the former.  I think it was important to
explore the potential problems with software patents, albeit indirect ones, given Ubuntu's
growing success.  The question was really about whether Ubuntu was so committed to GNOME that
it would be implicated in any such problems; Shuttleworth has indicated that if 
hypothetically  such a situation arose, Ubuntu could switch to KDE.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

spaetz — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:26:02 +0000

Case in point: 

On todays planet GNOME, developer Luis Medinas states "Brasero relationship with Gnome starts
with using totem for parse playlists and beagle to search for files" and continues ..."What
about a Rhythmbox plugin and a F-spot add-in to burn files..."

So if some GNOME developers consider their software related to GNOME as they make use of
Beagle, it's hard to claim that GNOME and mono-based programs have no relationship.

P.S. I don't have anything against Mono and .NET. I just agree with Mark Shuttleworth that
Free Software won't do itself a favor by replicating existing technologies that are led by
others.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

and — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:14:00 +0000

Actually my point was that the existence of Vala is an indication that 
Gnome at least has deeper ties to Mono and C# than for example to Qt and 
C++ for some non-technical reason which is not obvious to me.

My issues with C code generation are that (a) the generated code basically 
becomes unreadable by mere mortals, so using vala parts in C projects (and 
vince versa) is much harder than necessary (b) what happens if the 
underlying C libraries (gtk, say) change their interfaces or even just the 
semantics? Then the vala to c translator always produces incorrect code 
which you can only fix by hacking the translator. this problem won't occur 
if the toolkit is used directly from within the language it is written in. 
(c) it takes away the strengths of C (i.e. ability for low level 
programming, bindings to just about any library imaginable) without adding 
much which C++ doesn't offer and finally (d) to my knowledge it is very 
difficult to use debuggers such as gdb using vala's aproach since you 
would have to wade through the generated C code (on the other hand real 
programmers don't need debuggers anyway ;).

On the Qt/C++ side of the fence there has been (semi) automatic memory 
management by means of the Q*Pointer and various Container classes for an 
eternity (read: Qt 2.0), it has a nice foreach statement since 4.2 (IIRC), 
always had a very nice event notification mechanism and so on. Also you 
can use any C or C++ library out there without too much of a hassle. For 
all these reasons vala seems to be redundant from a technology perspective 
to me.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

jschrod — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:46:53 +0000

So, how do you think about a distribution that includes Samba?

You know, Samba, that reverse-engineered implementation of Microsoft's patent-encumbered
network file system protocol stack? Including parts of its proprietary directory technology?

Please note that I use neither GNOME nor Mono. I'm just responding because I find your
comments about Mono hypocritical.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

jdub — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:14:19 +0000

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
discussion.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

spaetz — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:50:57 +0000

You might not like this, but I agree with Glyn. The relationship is ill defined and while you
claim there is none, I claim that it is there.
Check Novell's GNOME desktop and find Beagle/Tomboy/Fspot.

You are right to point out that this is Novell's own doing and has nothing to do with GNOME.
From an outside point of view, it sure looks the same to me.

Just because it's not universally loved within GNOME, doesn't mean it's got nothing to do with
it.

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

kripkenstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:15:08 +0000

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

kripkenstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:34:58 +0000

I'm not sure what you mean here, perhaps I don't understand your point.

I don't see much similarity between Vala and Qt. Vala is C#, but tailored for the GObject
system, while Qt is built on top of C++ and has nothing to do with GObject. That is, Vala is a
new programming language, with syntax optimized for GObject. It includes things like automatic
memory management, nice 'for' loops, and various other things from modern languages like
Java/C#/etc.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "if the generated C code is incorrect you're in deep
trouble." If the assembly code generated by GCC from your C source is incorrect you're also in
deep trouble - don't we always have to trust our compilers?

Mark Shuttleworth on the future of Ubuntu

lysse — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:36:54 +0000

Perhaps, in between the "preview comment" button and the "submit" button, there is an
occasional need - one I've fallen foul of myself at times - for a "have a cup of peppermint
tea and chill out a bit" button...?