shameful censoring of mono opposition
remco47 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 00:58:00 UTC 2009
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Derek Broughton<derek at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Remco wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:52 PM, David
>> Schlesinger<David.Schlesinger at access-company.com> wrote:
>>> As Derek pointed out, Wine is indeed in the universal repository. You
>>> were completely mistaken about it, rendering your argument meaningless.
>>> The appropriate response at that point is to say, "I was wrong", not to
>>> try to switch to a completely different argument in mid-stream. Nobody's
>>> come within a parsec of suggesting that the codecs you mention should be
>>> part of the default install.
>> I guess you're really not getting my point. I was actually trying to
>> let you work that one out by comparing it to the codecs.
> That's not an argument, it's a complete misdirection. The
> non-free Codecs _aren't_ in Ubuntu repositories, Wine is.
You're arguing semantics. I don't care about semantics. The codecs are
not-in-Ubuntu the same way as Wine, because they are not installed,
and you can install them through Add/Remove. The codecs aren't
installed because of patent problems. Wine isn't installed because
Mark Shuttleworth doesn't want Ubuntu to be cheap Windows:
And I'm arguing that the same applies to Mono, because it's a
reimplementation of *the* Windows application framework.
You've now pushed me to the extreme, because I really don't have a
strong opinion about this. Mono-by-default is a problem, but it's not
paramount. I'm not going to leave Ubuntu for it (who came up with that
crazy idea...), but I am going to point it out.
I'd like to see the problem fixed, but that means a good alternative
to F-Spot and maybe Tomboy needs to be found or created. The Java
development tools need to be fixed for Ubuntu. The bindings need to
improve. Basically, it just needs the same love as Mono.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss