shameful censoring of mono opposition
mpfink at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 13:48:27 UTC 2009
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:03 AM, John McCabe-Dansted<gmatht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/9 Derek Broughton <derek at pointerstop.ca>
>> Sorry, but no. You are pretending to have a rational discussion, while
>> dismissing perfectly valid arguments.
>> > The codecs are
>> > not-in-Ubuntu the same way as Wine, because they are not installed,
>> No, they are not. The codecs are NOT in Ubuntu at all. Show me where
>> exist in the repositories. Wine is in the repos.
> I don't have strong feelings about Mono, but the OP suggests:
> "The solution seems obvious and easy: don’t make Mono or Mono apps
> part of the default install. Leave them in the repos for the users who
> want them..."
> Sounds much like the current policy of Restricted drivers. So from the POV
> of the OP "getting rid of mono" means removing it from the default install.
> A number of people have interpreted it to mean removing it from the repos,
> but doesn't appear to be what the OP wants, indeed AFAICT noone here has
> /specifically/ suggested removing Mono from the repos.
it would be better if it was removed from the repos too, but ubuntu
would get back some of its respect if it at least removed MONO from
the default install like Fedora is doing.
> To put things in perspective, mono requires 15MiB in .deb form and 44MiB
> installed. Thats about 2% of the space on the CD. If, hypothetically, Ubuntu
> was prevented from distributing wine, at least we wouldn't have to rebuild
> 'stable' CD-images.
that's a LOT of bloat
also programs like Gnote are GPL3 so you are protected from patents
Only by destroying MONO can Linux be saved.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss