GNOME: Split from GNU Project?

My whole take is this: Stallman amongst others wanted to be able to use a computer without limitation restricted by software (patents, licenses, etc.). And so it appears from the success that many other people agree with this as well. I want to be able to choose what proprietary apps, libs, etc.. go into my computer for if I don't get to choose then I am w/out choice and become restricted by the above mentioned.

It's nice that whatever happens gnu and others similar to it exist so that choice stays alive.

Simple as that not too much detail as I'm sure those who read or participate in this forum get my drift.

I have to agree with you, how do I have more choices if I am restricted in the choices I can make? Oh, and your not allowed to even talk about it in the forums either? No open debates that are not pre-approved by the almighty?

ugh

Scott -

TOS >almighty

Religious topic

>ugh

anti caveman racism

>debates

Crude and racist dig at Cajun fishermen.

We don't dig at Cajun fishermen. We git 'em from the stork!

Careful Scott, independent thought is not tolerated by anyone who is "working for a better you, for you".

RMSUF (Real men still use fluxbox :)

Yeah...that's it, that's the ticket...they just now found out that Stallman doesn't like non-free software.

You know, I've been on the sidelines over this whole mono thing because it doesn't seem very important. If you want to use it, use it. But when I see the astroturfers coming to LXer, I see GNOME discussing a split from GNU, it makes me wonder if maybe there isn't actually something to the arguments against mono.

What has Mono go to do with this?

So if they split from GNU will they change their name.

N-gnome: Non-Gnu Object Model Environment Ugnome: Un-Gnu Object Model Environment

Monoome: Mono Object Model Environment.

What a shock. Mention mono and along comes justintime.

I take it by your attack on me, that there is no connection with Mono at all and that you were just trolling.

Thanks for clarifying.

Bigg, you summed up my main problems with Mono-- its supporters. The tactics we've seen so far range from trollish to just plain jerk. No straight answers to simple questions, insisting that Mono belongs in default install images at the expense of apps that are actually worth including, and generally insulting and nasty. Which tells me that Mono cannot stand on its own merits, much like anything Microsoft-ian.

I like what Jeremy Allison and RMS both have to say, notice how sane they sound in comparison to the Mono fans:

http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/299 "Just like installing programs to play the patented MP3 format, this is a risk some Linux users are willing to take. But this should be the users decision, not an accident of it being a default application in a distribution."

http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono "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."

I agree that mono should be user discretion. That being said if there is an issue with C# in it's entirety then shouldnt the FSF have the same issue with DotGNU?

@az

I'm in the same boat as you. I don't see how mono represents any kind of threat.

OTOH it's hardly plausible that they just now found out Stallman opposes non-free software. It seems much more likely to me that it's the pushback against mono that is behind this, in particular as tuxchick says, when they are irrationally pushing mono onto users.

Well, that's an interesting point you raise (in your first comment) bigg.

I have always been against the .NET business model (of which Mono is a part), but probably my stance didn't change the world and apart from that I never needed any program which was dependent on Mono. Then why did I waste such an amount of effort?

You learn something new almost every day I guess.

Good question, az. Wikipedia says

"DotGNU is a part of the GNU Project that aims to provide a free software replacement for Microsoft's .NET Framework by Free Software Foundation. Other goals of the project are better support for non-Windows platforms and support for more processors.

"The main goal of the DotGNU project code base is to provide a class library that is 100% Common Language Specification (CLS) compliant. In contrast, the main goal of another free software/open source CLI implementation, the Mono Project, is to provide 100% compatible class libraries for both the CLS specification and with the class library currently released by Microsoft for their other proprietary version of .NET, which the DotGNU project claims is not currently fully ECMA CLS compliant.[citation needed]"

But if the use of C# is the problem, then...?

I think people are conflating 2 completely separate issues. What about this Planet GNOME debate involves Mono at all?

also, azerthoth: to be fair, RMS advises against the use of DotGNU too.

bigg: I just read a new article on LXer which is a correction to the accusation that the Planet GNOME debate was over Miguel's blog & Mono.

I suspect you assumed that Sam Varghese's claim that Mono was behind all this had some validity. It would appear, however, that Mr. Varghese was spreading FUD because according to Behdad Esfabod (did I spell that right?), being on the GNOME Foundation Board and privy to the actual cause of the mailing-list thread, says that Sam Varghese claim has no bearing on the truth.

I think justintime has a very valid question. One that no one has answered but has instead done exactly what they accuse the supporters of Mono of doing.

What does Mono have to do with GNOME breaking with the FSF?

> I suspect you assumed that Sam Varghese's claim that Mono was behind all this had some validity.

No. Sam Varghese is an idiot. I wouldn't read anything he wrote unless it was plagiarized by someone else.

I'm not pushing any conspiracy theories. I have no new information and don't claim to have any. I'm just saying that either (a) the individuals involved are really stupid, and it took them more than 10 years to figure out RMS is opposed to non-free software, or (b) it's not a coincidence that the war on Mono starts and a few months later there is a move to separate from GNU.

Well, the people pushing for a break with the FSF don't seem to have any relation to the Mono project. They certainly aren't Mono developers. Philip van Hoof appears to be associated with Tracker, Tinymail and Vala (which competes with Mono).