On Mono etc
There's again a whole slew of arguments going back and forth about mono.
Me, I don't use mono-based applications anymore. I used to be a Blam! user, until I found Liferea. I used to be an f-spot user, until I switched to digiKam. The reason, in both cases, was that the mono-based applications were much, much slower than their non-mono-based alternatives.
But I don't care either way. If people want to write an application in Mono, that's their business. If other people dislike using it, that's also their business.
What bothers me is the whole band of morons who think they have a say about the subject.
Let me spell it out: the personal dislike of a user is not, and will not ever be, a reason to keep mono in or out of a distribution. The only thing that is, is the availability of alternatives.
Or, in other words: if you dislike mono, don't whine. Instead, be constructive (like the gnote people) and provide alternatives.
If you're not willing to do that, you don't have any say in the subject. It's as simple as that.
It's funny sometimes. When Sun developed Java, it was not free software. People never complained about that; at least not very much. Eventually Java was made free software, but the rights to the Java name and what it encompasses are still firmly held by Sun. Nobody whines about that (and rightly so).
With technology coming from Microsoft, however, everything in that regard is totally different. For no particularly good reason...
Oh well.
Is just a start for another flame war. There are good enough reasons for a lot of people. (RMS, Red Hat, Groklaw etc.)
But I am tired.
Nite
The difference between Java and Mono is: Java: -Java was never part of a default install of any distribution i know. -Java was (until Ffreeing it) in the non-free repository -We have a license for all Java-related patents Mono: -Mono is now part of a default gnome install -Mono is in main -Instead of a patent-license, we have a non-binding promise not to sue.
Given the track record of Microsoft, like killing of Netscape, asking royalties for FAT, giving money to SCO, attacking odf with ooxml, etcetera, I prefer to not have mono (or moonlight) on my computers. Like Wouter, I don't care what others do, but I definitely don't trust Microsoft!
It's true that there are a lot of flames and off-topic discussions.
However, the real point is not about liking Mono or not, or finding a VM too slow for desktop usage. The real problem is when your desktop depends on that technology, replacing it will be very difficult and break you desktop. That's the fear of RedHat, Groklaw and RMS. We are not talking about a note-taking utility.
C.
Hi Wouter,
Well I think people (in whichever side of any argument) should be able to complain if they want to and their opinion should be listened to, even if they don't contribute actual work, as long as they do so respectfully.
(this cuts both ways; I also think people shouldn't behave in disrespectful ways, no matter how much work they have contributed).
Anyway, glad to see a civil, constructive response to my post. I hope we see more of that!
End users sell or make the decision to buy (install, etc) one technology (eg, distro) over another. They may report bugs, make good feature or usability suggestions, occasionally contribute an important observation or technical point, provide legal advice or communicate an interesting experience. They can help bring in more developers or help developers move elsewhere. They may contribute money. They may be developers not yet convinced to join a project. They might have the ear of people who play a big role in any of the above.
Remember, greater uptake of a technology generally helps all of those invested in it (sometimes it might have the opposite effect though).
To think "end users" don't merit to be heard is a joke. Especially since that end user might just have a very good idea about what is going on. [This does happen from time to time.]
I generally see people who want to ignore based on what role you can prove to be playing and what connection you have as likely not being capable of defending their pov.
BTW, comparing Microsoft to Sun is a funny matter. One needed FOSS and contributed greatly to it, the other is terribly threatened by it (FOSS and openness works against monopoly levers and profit and abuse).
Of course, I am sure the above are being done by mono supporters as well and hence the mono influence. Point is that it usually makes little sense to reject arguments for anything but the merit of such arguments.
Patented APIs (not the literal strings but the semantics). Yuck.
I never said end users don't merit to be heard. However, while they should be heard, they do not and will not ever make a final decision about anything related to code.
That's totally up to the developer.
Of course, if the user then decides that he doesn't like the decisions made by the developer, he is totally capable of using something else.
There're always alternatives.