This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2009/06/09/mono-critique-for-ubuntu/.
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Ubuntu at 5:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue”
–Robert Scoble, former Microsoft evangelist
Summary: There is no route through which to communicate with Ubuntu regarding the Mono problem
IN the Ubuntu Web site where ideas are being proposed, some appointed moderators were seen diverting people who raise concerns about Mono to bug reporting sections. But Jeff Enns makes the fair point that: “you are not describing a bug with mono. The forums would be a better place for discussion, not bug reports. Thank you.” Tony Manco spotted this one yesterday.
=> were seen diverting | ↺ makes the fair point
“[P]eople who voice concerns about Mono are sent around in loops and their freedom of expression is hence compromised.”So basically, people who voice concerns about Mono are sent around in loops and their freedom of expression is hence compromised. It’s the same in the forums and even in the mailing lists (although raising the issue more politely would not hurt). Thanks to Tony Manco for noticing and notifying about this. Those who express dissatisfaction with the inclusion of Mono by default* are treated as though they are enemies. But why? By whom?
=> same in the forums | ↺ even in the mailing lists
A Microsoft-born company (well, created by former Microsoft employees**) that advances Mono further is now given a spot in OStatic. Their article is not about their advancement of Mono***, but it does show how Microsoft can intersect with channels of communication about Free/open source software.
Another one of our readers says that Miguel de Icaza “FUDS Google Chrome. He’s concerned that it might violate the LGPL.” Here is part of his message:
We are on a similar situation with Moonlight where we ended up distributing proprietary codecs for VC1 (also MPEG-LA licensed) instead of the open source ffmpeg.Today our answer for those that want to use ffmpeg (and it is my personal choice as well, since I rather dogfood open source software) is to compile Moonlight from source code and use the ffmpeg code themselves instead of depending on proprietary codecs to be installed.
The codecs that the user relies on are imposed by the publisher, not chosen by the receiver. This means that pretending that Microsoft Moonlight is fine without Microsoft binaries is purely deceit. It ought to be added that APIs too (e.g. Silverlight) can be a patent liability, with or without codecs. █ ______* Choice is fine, but to force patent liability upon people is plainly dangerous, maybe irresponsible.** MindTouch was last mentioned here as it helps a certain Microsoft land grab.*** There is at least one Microsoft employee who is even working directly on Mono.
=> Microsoft Moonlight | APIs too (e.g. Silverlight) can be a patent liability | patent liability | here | a certain Microsoft land grab
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).