Lately I noticed that there are some of FLOSS that I use that are not included in the standard GNOME. OK some of those are not GPL and I can understand a debate in this issue. However there is one application that changed my habits and experience.
I know this can not done by me but I would suggest the GNOME Community considering including it into GNOME. It might not really follow the GNOME HIG but sure there is a way to work it out. I mean if it the issue of blending it into the GNOME looks and feel, it already does. And as much as GNOME 3.0 is planning to change the users approach and experience to their computer GNOME Do already did that. And they have a very large audience. And if you have not tried it then try it.
So here is an idea:
Instead of Developers always having to propose their FLOSS for GNOME inclusion. Why can’t GNOME create some kind of a team or squad that hunts for potential FLOSS that could be included into GNOME. Inviting the developers to become active within the community, giving them the opportunity to work on a larger scale with a cool community from which on the other side GNOME can only
profit.
{ 62 } Comments
I’m not sure if having GNOME Do in ‘Desktop’ is a good idea. It requires Mono, remember?
While Mono may provide a nice way of accessing the Gnome libraries, Mono itself is a cul-de-sac: using Mono code in any of the GNOME platform languages is practically impossible. There is no convienient way to provide C or C++ bindings for Mono code. That’s what I call a dead end.
One could suggest re-implementing the whole Gnome desktop for Mono, of course. I rather like Boo and would love to see it as a supported language. But having the whole desktop running on a VM does feel like overkill to me. And don’t forget the effort required. It would take ages to do that and stall for years.
I think it would make more sense to just reimplement GNOME Do in another language. Maybe Vala; it’s rather close to C#, makes GObject programming a bliss and bindings for all kind of languages can be generated automagicly.
I really would love to see a fully integrated ‘Do’, with with each application providing an extension. Aza Raskin has some very interesting thoughts in that direction.
Stop the mono fud. Tomboy is part of the gnome desktop and it’s written in mono.
That’s a nice idea, but I’m not that many projects will want to downgrade to the bugzilla which sometimes takes a literal five minutes to open a page.
i don’t think that is a good ideea that gnome-do should be a part of gnome. it will be the only application that is mono based and is WRONG. if gnome-do would be a c/c++ or other programming language that is already in gnome project then it would have all my support.
not the only but still is wrong to have mono in gnome
I completely agree with you.
Cimi did a similar propose months ago:
http://www.cimitan.com/blog/2009/01/31/do-ifying-gtk-30/
He too suggested to rewrite DO without Mono.
@Ionut
so let me get this straight if it were in C/C++ you would want it in?
because if yes then your argument is not valid! GNOME is not only about the hackers
its about the users. And if Do does the job then it should be in.
Declining FLOSS based on their language is a bit like racism. Declining people based on color or race! We should grow up!
@Vadim Peretokin
why should they downgrade to bugzilla makes no sense
I’m not the worlds biggest mono fan. But god. This is getting old.
I’d love to see GNOME-Do in the desktop.
Gnome-Do rocks. I agree, it should be part of the desktop, and we should have deeper infrastructure for actions thoughout the desktop. It’d be nice if it had a more Ubiquity-like parser though.
Really guys, who cares what language it’s written in? Having said that, I wouldn’t complain at more people using vala, it’s rocking my world at the moment
@Seif Lotfy
Because being part of Gnome means the project should use Gnome’s infrastructure, see here: http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleProposing
And yeah, you are right, there should be a team which can politely invite developers to make their software part of Gnome. Why is for example, nm-applet not part of Gnome? Because the developers didn’t propose it again after being refused for 2.20 or .22?
Alright.
Gnome Do is a prime example that you can do great stuff with Mono.
No, Microsoft is not going to take anything to court based on the fact that it uses Mono. No, they won’t. No. No, period. Aren’t you guys listening? NO! N! O! Nononono. Notgonnahappen.
Like John Carr says: This is getting old.
So: Drop it. Remove it if you must. And when it comes down to it: I don’t nag you with my religion, so don’t nag me with yours.
There. I’m done.
Thanks, Seif for having the courage to spite the mob!
Gnome Do should be rewritten in C/C++/Vala, like Tomboy. It can be done in a few weeks and then nobody would have a problem with it.
As a user I don’t like simple apps to take 15+ seconds to launch on a handheld device just because they are built on top of a runtime resource hog.
And I don’t want to have Mono, Java and Python runtimes running and eating up all my memory just for basic desktop functionality. They all come with their own frameworks that duplicate API that’s already provided by GNOME libraries.
I dont think GNOME was meant for a handheld!
Tomboy would be useful on a Maemo device if it had good perfomance.
@Bishop: You are the user. Take what is served.
And Gnome-Do starts pretty fast, Mono is pretty fast, and working superbly on low end devices like iPhone for example…
btw: no one would need Gnome DO on a handheld device, would they?
So get back to topic…
Driving Porsche in the rainforest would be nice to, it’s just not working^^
there’s no need for another stupid c++ fork. gnome-do isn’t a library other apps can link to, so who cares what language it is written in. (beside that, C apps stil won’t be able to link against it if you rewrite it in c++..)
@Mork: are you willing to do it?
guys, stop that c++ fork nonsene. i can’t think of anything else more contra productive. how would you feel if someone comes along, forks your code into another language and your userbase moves to that fork? you’ll loose all your motivation and probably abandon the project. and then the creative maintainer of the fork has nothing to copy from. its an dead end.
@Ketil: You will notice that I didn’t even mention Microsoft in my comment. The only reason wouldn’t like to see Mono in Gnome is simply to avoid fragmentation; one cannot use a library written in C# for a C program. And since the vast majority of all Gnome applications is written in C, this simply makes Mono a no-option for all libraries.
My other concern about Mono is about the Virtual Machine. No, I don’t like VMs in my desktop environment. An though I’ve come to terms with Gnome applications written in Python, I don’t think that major parts of a desktop environment should run in a VM.
@Raphael: You are aware of the FACT that the new GNOME Shell is written in JavaScript?
I don’t think Mono is any worse.
At least JavaScript is slim.
@Raphael: You will notice that I didn’t mention you (or any other individual) at all in my comment. There is a lot of Mono bashing out there, and it revolves around two faulty principles:
- Mono isn’t any good
- Mono opens the door to lawsuits
I dealt with both in my comment.
I can add that Banshee and Tomboy is also proof that Mono helps developers do great stuff.
@mkike: yes, I’m aware that the Gnome Shell will be largely scripted through JavaScript. And I do think that this is a good idea, since it will allow rapid prototyping, something that was much more difficult before.
However; are you aware that this is only possible because of GIntrospection and the result of Gnome being written in C, thus making it easy to create bindings to all kinds of languages, JavaScript and C# included?
I would like to ‘Do’ in Gnome, if it were a simple application in the way of Tomboy, with no side effects. But I do see ‘Do’ in a much more promising way; as a new interface to access the computer (Look up ‘Aza Raskin’, ‘Enso’ and ‘Ubiquity’ for more information). And as a such I’d rather see it reimplemented in C or Vala, so /all/ components of the desktop can profit from it.
Wow. Choosing not to have Mono on my system means I’m a racist, or at list a bit like a racist? Look, Mono’s an impressive accomplishment, but there are valid reasons not to choose it that go beyond developers’ preferences.
I was happy to see the tomboy port, because the port is a lot more memory-efficient (especially for those who use no other Mono-based apps and so otherwise wouldn’t have those shared libraries loaded). And it is unclear that those other than Novell customers are safe from patent litigation; Microsoft has already gone after Linux use of VFAT.
I’m glad that Mono and Moonlight exist, for those users who need access to software that runs on that platform. But I don’t think it’s wise to build more dependencies on it.
People, stop telling us to rewrite our mono apps in another language. Did you ever think of why those apps exist? Might be because mono is a cool, rock solid plattform for rapid application developing. If you want to code in C or whatever…hey, stick to it…thats cool with me but don’t wonder when the cool mono apps outrun your C based application.
Managed code can be called from unmanaged code:
http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-list/2007-February/034280.html
And as well, the other way arround, unmanaged from managed:
http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~draheim/doc/unsafe-mono.print.html
Gnome Do should absolutely be required in Gnome proper. Its the only Gnome-specific piece of software I couldn’t live without.
Firefox and office apps are so cross platform there’s no compelling reason to use Gnome for them. Media players and the other common apps I use have compelling alternatives in every other platform.
Gnome Do is easily my favorite part of using Gnome and probably the most innovative. Gnome should *beg* Gnome Do to join officially.
Hunting for apps to put into GNOME is a bad idea. We have a group called the release team and they are the ones who consider applications for inclusion. The reason the app must be proposed is there needs to be someone who is responsible for the quality of the software and adherence to the rules. Rules such as having to reside in GNOME’s repositories, making a commitment to time based releases, backwards compatibility and quick security fixes are not just for show. They are important.
Language is also a factor in decisions for technical, legal and political reasons. Political in the sense that an application needs to be generally acceptable to the GNOME Community. Rejecting Mono for Mono’s sake is stupid but it does have a higher barrier to cross before being accepted than say a C/C++ app (for that matter most secondary languages have a higher barrier). GNOME Do does seem like something that could get in but there may be thought that something similar could be built into the shell. You have to be very careful with front and center application as it will be harder to change later if a more integrated solution would be better.
In any case the best answer is to help out with the release team. Those guys are pretty overworked.
I am sick and tired of people rejecting .NET/Mono, spreading FUD and talking crap such as about rewriting cool Mono apps in C/C++. You guys are fucking clueless morons.
Reimplementing GNOME Do in vala would be… interesting to say the least. It makes heavy use of many of the advanced features of C# making a line for line port practically impossible. Further, bindings against any Do libraries would be kind of silly, none of them do anything useful to external applications. What would make sense is a dbus interface that provides the functionality you wish to have happen via bindings. This would not only solve the problem for all languages at once, but provide a more consistent and useful interaction model. Allowing external applications to work with GNOME Do is on our “todo” list, it will happen. Hopefully soon.
@simone
Don’t put words in Andrea’s mouth. Nowhere in that post does Andrea say that he thinks Do should be rewritten, there is a quote of someone else that says that Do would need to be Gtk+ but this is not because it is mono, but rather for technical reasons of being able to reach into applications and figure out what they’re doing.
No! Please don’t booby-trap my desktop with the .net bomb. I don’t want my desktop to depend on Microsoft. I don’t want to live in fear that Microsoft will sent lawyers to break my desktop (TomTom anyone). I don’t want to be a second class citizen copying MS technology (by definition a catch up). RMS has something interesting to say about it (http://fsfe.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html#q1):
Q1: I’m interested in hearing your opinion on the relationship between Mono and GNOME.
Richard Stallman: Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft’s language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it’s dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. There’s nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It’s good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that.”
@Kris
So when Stallman says its dangerous to use GNOME we should stop using GNOME?
@Kris:
Not that I get why Stallman’s oppinion should be more important than — say — facts… Here’s something else Stallman said about Mono: http://gnuwww.nedmirror.nl/press/2001-07-09-DotGNU-Mono.html
Also, because you mention the TomTom case — take care to keep your desktop free of Linux. That’s dangerous. Microsoft could sue you.
The rest of your “arguments” are just old FUD as well. Second class citizen? Behind by definition? http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Apr-09.html
@Seif Lotfy
Comparing base language requirements to racism is comparing two things that have no business being compared. Race cannot be changed. Languages can be, often are as the fashion changes, and for practical concerns are often restricted. I suggest that you tell Linus that you’d like to add a Mono module to the Linux kernel and see what his response would be.
@Robert Devi
Sorry, my reply got attached to the wrong message. It should have been message #7.:-(
+1 for Gnome DO integrated in Gnome
Why should gnome-do be part of gnome? Because 5 characters of its name form the word “gnome”? I rather run Awn rewrite than gnome-do on computers.
I really don’t get it why is Mono hated! Really, Mono provides enough performance. Banshee for me is much slimmer than Rythmbox. Also, considering that Mono improves in itself (mono 2.2 for instance, and it will still continue to improve), the performance is not such a big impact.
GEdit application (which I like it a lot) starts in a quarter of time of MonoDevelop. What means that? But in rest, after it starts, it runs flawlessly.
The problem I see in C/Glib world is that the level of contributing to it is much higher: no code completion is almost the rule, to not talk about unit tests, long compiling time, a lot of clumpsy libraries and to solve linking issues as you don’t have a library version and you get a missing symbol.
At least an recent mono is pretty usable to be used for developers and the contributing curve to it, is really tight. I would really like to find a Nautilus replacement in Mono, is really needed. Nautilus is the same for 4 years. Excluding that it adds tabs and switch for item previews from GStreamer 0.8 to GStreamer 0.10, no vital change from GNOME 2.0. Or probably I’m not seeing the obvious.
So only changing a bit Banshee to have a plugin to start as Totem (no management, only player), I would gladly remove both Totem and Rythmbox for Banshee (look here: http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/74/ – “To save a significant amount of space (6.1 MiB), we dump bloated C-based Rhythmbox and include svelte lightweight C#-based Banshee. The numbers may astonish C die-hards, but they’re true” )
@Seif Lotfy
Should we just believe Miguel, when he says using Mono is ok?
I am not a Mono fan, let’s start with that, but everybody is free to choose the platform of his or her choice when developing software. If Mono works for you, then good for you.
However, Mono *does* have legal issues. The thing is, I’ve seen Mono-users (for example Ketil, above) responding to the issues with ‘nononono, not going to happen’ or something similar. And then later on, he then claims ‘to have dealt with the issues in his comment’. No, Ketil, you haven’t. It’s just not that simple. The assumed qualities of the language (which I cannot judge) do not solely merit stepping over these issues and claiming them non-existent.
The legal issues around Mono are real. I’m not saying Mono should be banned or ignored, but I do think you need to get your facts straight. Mono itself is GPL’ed, so the language itself is pretty safe. However, if you check the footnotes on the Wikipedia entry on Mono, you’d see that the legal position of certain parts of Mono is less than clear, and certainly not completely safe. Especially, check footnotes 10 and 11, not just 9.
As for bundling Gnome Do with Gnome, I think you should ask yourself what would be gained by that. There is a lot of controversy around Mono. And whether or not you agree with either party is irrelevant: the controversy exists. Period. Therefore, the argument that Tomboy is already in Gnome, so it’s ok to push more Mono software, is moot. There are still a lot of people who think Gnome should do without Mono all together. The fact that mainstream Mono based software is still relatively rare illustrates how much momentum Mono has at the moment. The success and popularity of the gnote project illustrate how much resistance Mono has.
I’m completely ok with Gnome-Do being part of distributions, but for the sake of keeping the community together, let’s not push Gnome-Do into upstream Gnome. I, for one, do not see the benefit of it (though I agree I would rather see Gnome without Mono altogether) and I think there are too many people weary of Mono to bluntly push more of the Mono stack and alienate them.
@Gabor: nm-applet was NEVER refused by the release-team. It’s just that the developers never managed to get a separate tarball done.
@Bishop Mandible: There is a maemo port called Conboy available that is actively maintained.
As for the original blogpost: As J5 has already written, developers are free to propose their modules for official inclusion into GNOME.
@Maxim:
No, you shouldn’t trust Miguel. Just inform yourself, and judge for yourself. But if you oppose Mono in public, it is good practise to actually get your own “facts straight”, and bring arguments instead of repeating FUD.
Never, ever, could somebody tell me an attack scenario of Microsoft against Mono-based Linux applications. If you claim that a risk exists, pick either application (Gnome Do, Tomboy, F-Spot or Banshee, just to name a few), and describe the scenario. But be precise — no general keyword FUD. I’d be very interested!
Sure, the windows compatibility stack is not protected by the ECMA licensing. But none of the mentioned applications uses it. Taking this against Mono is just like argumenting against C++ development, because Microsofts MFC is also in C++, and Microsoft has patents on concepts implemented in the MFC. In short: Ridiculous.
It’s also not protected against patents that are not necessary to implement the ECMA standard. But then, no project is protected against that (mind that software patents don’t concern implementation, but implementation methods and concepts). So a port to C++ doesn’t help.
The fact is that Mono is _better_ protected than many other frameworks. Take Java. Sun patents everything they can (they hold over 50 on ZFS alone), and the fact that Java is GPLv2 (mind the 2!) doesn’t help either.
That a lot of childish and uninformed rants exist in the community is not a reason to throw FUD and dirt against an impressive FOSS project.
Mono-based applications should have the same entry barrier as languages as Python, Perl, Javascript, or Java. Neither higher nor lower.
@andre klapper
Conboy is rewrite of Tomboy in C, it isn’t a C# port.
@hb
Okay, fair enough.
I don’t have the time to provide you with a very detailed piece. It takes someone far much more skilled than me in legal matter to provide an answer that would solve the issue within an acceptable timeframe. That said, I will try to provide you with some links that at least made *me* wary of Mono.
First of all, consider this piece by Bruce Perens: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3812891_1/Bruce-Perens-Microsoft-and-TomTom-Settle-Justice-and-Linux-Lose.htm. A very recent article in which I think Bruce provides excellent insight in what possible pitfalls exist for Mono and other projects.
Then, considering PJ’s long experience in the legal field, read, for example, this article: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090401152339514
In that article, you’ll find an interesting link to http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=47762&messageID=889966&start=0. That’s a MS employee, claiming Mono is limited (that’s the famous ‘agreement’, right there) to Novell. Might or might not be a valid claim.
I am also aware of the statement about patents in the Mono FAQ on mono-project.com. Miguel has a similar piece on his blog, be it a bit more Novell centered. So now we have two sides at the debate here, one side (including Perens, RMS and PJ) saying Mono (i.e. Microsoft) is not to be trusted and one side (Novell, De Icaza) saying it is all ok.
For me that debate *is* a legal issue. The fact that the existence of legal issues around Mono is disputed, is enough to create problems. The possibility of patent suits, be it so small as you’d like me to believe or as big as others do, is a nightmare for enterprise deployments. Indemnification is something only big players can do. Call it FUD, call it a patent trap, I feel uncomfortable with it, professionally. That is why I don’t want the Gnome dependency on Mono to become much harder than it already is.
If someone takes away these issues, I would be glad, mind you. I’m not against Mono per se: again, if it works for you, it’s fine with me.
And as far as your point about Sun is concerned: Sun hasn’t exactly got the same track record in patent suits as Microsoft. Besides, there is only one reason ZFS is not in the Linux kernel: a legal one. Finally, I fail to see what the license on Java has to do with our discussion.
Nobody can take away issues that don’t exist. That’s the whole point of FUD: One cannot prove the non-existence of something. It would be up to the FUDders to prove their claims, but they’re not interested in that. They’re just interested in throwing mud. It works, in the end. Something always sticks. Btw, this is a popular Microsoft tactics against FOSS. Isn’t that ironic?
In my oppinion, the dispute is mostly because it involves a company with the name “Microsoft”, which results in all kinds of childish behaviour. You’re right, me too, I wouldn’t trust Microsoft — but I wouldn’t trust Sun/Oracle, or Apple, or $COMPANY_NAME_HERE either. It’s foolish to trust Google or Apple just because they’re cool, in the same way as it is foolish to hate Mono because it’s connected to Microsoft.
I do trust however in license agreements. So please, any arguments should be based on facts, not emotions or feelings.
The so called “Patent trap” has nothing to do specifically with Mono. Honestly, if you’re afraid of patents, don’t develop FOSS. At all. Not even in plain old C. It’s that simple. Also, you might have to throw away a lot more than you might think. OpenGL? Micosoft bought SGI’s patents concerning 3D graphics. The list is endless. Microsoft even handed in a patent application that described a “is not equal” pointer comparison. I hope that particular patent didn’t make it past application status, but you can rest assured hundreds of such trivial patents do actually exist.
There is absolutely no reason why Mono-based application should be *MORE* endangered. The reverse is true: They are *LESS* endangered, because they actually are allowed to use some patents, in contrast to other frameworks, which just violate them.
Note that my claim is NOT that Microsoft can be trusted. My claim is: Mono (obviously sans Windows compatibility stack) is not more (actually it’s less) endangered than other frameworks. And that is due to its LICENSING, and NOT due to the Novell agreement, or any feelings the “community” might have.
Concerning your links: Please don’t mix up Mono with Moonlight. That’s completely off-topic. I don’t want to judge the legal status of Moonlight — but in general, of course, you can base unfree stuff on free foundations. You can write a Silverlight-Clone in pure C++, and it would likely have the same patent problems as Moonlight has, or doesn’t have. In any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with Gnome-Do, Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy, and so on.
fud, m$, vm, c, slow, fast, blah blah blah…
Lets take a little step back. Gnome do is very useful. It works, it makes the desktop better. Gnome aims to include tools to make the desktop better. Therefore gnome do should be part of gnome.
Now can people please give up on the language moaning already, this isn’t the 90s. I mean I thought this was suppose to be FREE software, doesn’t that include being able to code in different languages. (and as far as patents go its such a horrible mess there’s probably a fair few patents on C/C++. Does any care? no! should they? no!)
Also, go find me an average user who cares what languages their apps are written in! This is a desktop for crying out loud not a computer science lab.
It can sure be tempting to get into language debates. I happen to think writing in C++ is like trying to write an essay using a blunt pencil actioned by a clockwork monstrosity using an infinite number of steam powered levers. (that is: fiddly, cumbersome, and outdated). But at the end of the day I don’t care what anyone else wants to use. It doesn’t matter. If the program i’m using works well, why should I care? And that’s the thing: USERS JUST DON’T CARE!
In conclusion: make gnome-do part of gnome. Be less anal about what language people choose to write their programs in. Have a better life
Mono is a no-go. I would propose to remove Tomboy as well or recode it.
ar: Mono is not a no-go, simple fact is that we already accepted Tomboy. This no matter what your opinion is.
@Jon: you are right: I don’t care which language a program is written, but I care how “fast” a program is. I tryed gnome-do and liked it, BUT on my machine (~4 years old) it is slow to load, and when loaded sometimes it takes more than 2 seconds to appear after pressing [win+space]. When I press [alt+F2] I always get the window in less than 1 second.
I think a central part of gnome, like gnome-do may be, should have the best gettable performances, and this, in my experience of simple user, isn’t reachable with Mono.
Hmm this seems like a controversial topic. My problem with gnome do is its not really needed to be included. It would be a waste of space, like compiz. Just wasting cpu time and disk space.
Actually two other questions we should be asking are.
Why isnt thunderbird in gnome and why isnt banshee the defalt media player?
@Matteo: So, the applications elected as core Gnome components are chosen to be the ones with maximum speed? So Evolution is the fastest Mailer? Nautilus is the fastest file manager? Well, at least both are in plain C, so they are by definition ultra-fast, right? Good joke.
And comparing Gnome-Do to [alt+F2] is a funny one, too. A program that doesn’t do much can clearly be fast. The funny thing is that Gnome-Do makes me achive my tasks much faster than [alt+F2], because it actually does a lot of stuff to support me. Even if it takes a second longer to start, it saves me 30 seconds on my task. As I want to get my work done quickly (and my work is not to see a window, but to do stuff), that’s not a bad deal.
@Matteo
I agree with hb – can’t just base things on raw speed. After all the whole point of things like XFCE is to provide that speed because you can’t BOTH provide raw speed and a rich desktop experience. If Gnome was aiming to be one of those then sure, but its not, its aiming to be a full and polished and modern desktop.
On a side not i’m using a 4year old laptop (pentium m 1.8) and alt f2 actually takes longer to open than gnome do (which is instantaneous). And that with effects turned on – Ubuntu ftw!
As for building a better desktop experience, building in Gnome-do would make it possible to have integration with gnome apps by default instead of as bonus extra i.e. something with guarenteed support, could open the door to all sorts of clever innovations.
@Shane – you make a good point: Rhyhmbox and Banshee are identical to the untrained eye, though each one lacks a couple of features that the other has. Why aren’t the development teams merged? Would make sense to me. Although I suspect that would raise yet another mono-hating debate.
@Jon I still think the mono hating debate is mainly fear and not hate. Well the simple fact is if they replace rhythmbox and totem with banshee they would have a full featured media player much like itunes or windows media player. It would make sense because people switching over dont have to learn something stupid like open this in rhythmbox and open this in totem. Plus totem is terrible for users, it doesnt use a library so you have to use nautilus to open the video and that is stupid. Banshee may be new and may use mono and may still be lacking in some areas but its ready to be the default because its simply better than the alternative.
@Shane I wouldn’t ditch totem completely – its nice to have a basic video player handy (plus its used as a firefox plugin and to play DVDs). But i agree most of the anti-mono sentiment seems to be more fear and knee-jerk reaction against something new (and possibly disbelief that MS actually invented something pretty decent).
As for patents etc, like i said there’s boatloads of patents relating to C which no one cares about. Like GCC, Mono is an open source implementation of a standard – ECMA 334 & 335 to be precise, and now includes all sorts of bits that aren’t part of MS’s work (GTK# etc).
In the end it still seems ridiculous to oppose using Gnome-Do based on how its coded rather than how useful it is.
@Jon I wouldnt think it would be useful enough to justify it becoming part of gnome. When you can hit alt+f2 and from there you can open programs. Also you can open programs and documents with alt+f3 through the deskbar applet. I would have no problem with banshee being made the default. Obviously certain things like the browser plugin etc will have to be made but totem isnt as feature rich as is needed in a modern operating system.
Do should be part of Gnome, and thats it
Gnome Do is a good time saver. And I have nothing against mono. I have however problem with the bloat recent years have brought to the Desktop, both Windows and Linux. Even Linus got scared of the bloated kernel. I rely heavily on python and perl, however those we use for administrative tasks, and tasks that take long time. I accept banshee and f-spot, but those don’t sit open all the time and u don’t rely on them for your work. So no I don’t want Do in Gnome, It’s fine as a software you can install if you choose to.
Thanks I found just the info I already searched everywhere and just couldn’t find. What a perfect site.
In searching for sites related to web hosting and specifically comparison hosting linux plan web, your site came up.
Post a Comment