Soon, on a computer near you. The Managed D-BUS GNOME, with free "Downgrade to Vista" coupons included.
NDesk.DBus (ndesk-dbus), aka DBus# or "managed D-Bus" is a C# implementation of D-Bus.
Officially, "It aims for compatibility with Mono and Microsoft .NET frameworks supporting the 2.0 profile. "
It has already entered in various distros like Debian Sid/Lenny, Arch, and our Italian friends of Slackware have even made a package for gnome-slacky-12.0. This is a disaster.
Thanks to Roy Schestowitz from "Boycott Novell", I became aware of an issue raised by the reader who commented on Quote of the Day: Slashdot Users on Novell’s Mono in GNOME:
«I haven't seen much comment about the fact that ndesk-dbus has been approved for inclusion to Gnome 2.22 (amidst all the other hoopla).
I find this worrying because it is a Mono-implementation of D-Bus, which I would consider a core-technology for the desktop (and I for one am not laughing over the "libdbus should be put out of its misery"-comments from GUADEC '07).
For example (from Gnome Live! for Gnome 2.22) the GDM (display manager) is listed with "Redesign of GDM so that it makes use of D-Bus for all interprocess communications."
I never thought Miguel's plans for a whole C#-implementation of Gnome would actually turn into reality...
Hopefully I'm worrying over nothing here...»
There is a lot to worry about.
Indeed, I can see in External Dependencies of GNOME 2.21.x that ndesk-dbus, ndesk-dbus-glib are "Approved".
This seems to have been requested on Nov. 16, and it got approved on Jan. 9.
Soon, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to "unMonofy" your GNOME, as once you will get rid of Tomboy, F-Spot, Beagle, Banshee, Muine, Telepathy, whatever, you won't be able to remove Mono, as it will be required as a GNOME system library!
Not counting the existing Gtk#/C#-based applications, the GNOME guys want not only to replace libdbus with ndesk-dbus, but they want to nail down everything so that the new ndesk-dbus/Mono bindings are used in as much as possible! Official plans include:
a Gnome NetworkManager binding;
a Gnome Power Manager binding;
hal-sharp;
NotifySharp as a libnotify client replacement;
gnome-keyring-sharp as a replacement for gnome-keyring.
Now that we don't want to refer anymore to "technical" reasons (actually, rather ideological reasons), we will notice some other issue that motivates them to reinvent a monoized D-Bus: the licensing.
I am very much pro-BSD/X11/MIT as a set of free licenses, and I don't cherish the GPL, but when a team assumed "technical" is referring to to the libdbus licensing as a LOSS, you know what they mean. They mean that in the last line, "win" stands for "Microsoft Windows".
P.S.: Too bad GNOME is getting screwed right now, when Anjuta was proposed for inclusion, and there are some chances it will eventually make it.
P.P.S. — The $1 billion tip: As KDE4 is already grotVistaesque, and GNOME will become the next Microsoft Windows (Vista+2), should a big corporate folks have some cash to spend on buying an open-source project (à la MySQL + Sun = love), I suggest them to target XFCE. It's worth more than $1 bn, but it's still cheaper right now. I only ask for 0.1% of the value of the transaction. Thanks.
UPDATE 2/4: There is that "friend" of both boycottnovell and now of beranger (it's a collective, as the About page says: "we'll be dissecting some of the more salacious "news"..."), and here's the corresponding reaction: Latest GNOME FUD.
Well, I have checked that message from 2006, and there was no clear guarantee that Mono will be removable from GNOME. So we're in the land of all the possibilities, and the current trend seems to be a Monoization of GNOME.
40 commentsWell Well Well,
I just did a "Who.is" on the ndesk.org domain and the owner is Alp Toker.
For info, Alp Toker is an ex-Ximian boy with a particular penchant for Mono (http://marc.info/?a=102634271600003&r=1&w=2). On a side note, I did not realize it but Ximian seems to be still alive as per the impressive traffic on the following mailing lists related to Mono (http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo). I guess Novell has to go all the way now after all these years of investment.
I have not really look too hard for who is paying his bills now but he is quite a busy man. In the past year, he has worked on gtk#, C# Cairo binding, integration of Webkit in GTK and N-desk (d-bus#). Regarding his presentation at Guadec last year (http://www.atoker.com/dbus/managed-dbus-guadec07.pdf), I really enjoyed the sale speach on the mono software: Tomboy, F-spot, Beagle, Banshee, Banter. I guess the Gmono desktop environment is approaching fast.
Finally, the little moto on his blog (http://www.atoker.com/blog/) is rather intriguing: "There is a third way". Hummmm, what could that be, Alp?
I should change my logo to: "There is no such thing as free software."
KDE was not free because of the Qt3 license, now it seems fixed and Qt4 is much better, but KDE4 is Vistaesque.
GNOME used to be free, but now it's not: the *forced* Monoization is not "freedom" to any possible extent, not to mention that it's a mess to mix everything with C/C++/Python, including C#.
Will GTK+ itself keep being free, as to have a relatively safe XFCE?
Unfortunately You are SO right this time...
And this is even said with out being rude and loud like you love.
I also wrote about this in my posts. It seems that the mono fans are being pushed by who ever. Let's hope they'll be stoped. No MONO and C# on my linux please!
I begin to understand why people are sick of fanboys ...
Your way to exaggerate things is laughable. Even if Alp is a GNOME developper he can't say "Hey guys, stop your shitty C and let's move to glorious C#". Maybe you are a bit too paranoiac ? Stopping coffee might help.
Actually when you say :
"Not counting the existing Gtk#/C#-based applications, the GNOME guys want not only to replace libdbus with ndesk-dbus, but they want to nail down everything so that the new ndesk-dbus/Mono bindings are used in as much as possible! Official plans include:[...]"
I don't see where you quote that from. There is nothing like that in Alp slides and, even if it was the case, as I said before Alp doesn't decide alone the future of GNOME.
OpenSource is about choice. I think that's what Alp think when he talks about the licence thing. And if don't like the way he put it why don't you propose a sensible correction instead of barking your hate at the world ?.
Moreover, if you don't want Mono in Gnome just don't use what "depends" on Mono (I actually see no core component depending Mono even in you vaporware list, just mere bindings which are, by definition, facultative). And if you are so bitter just go and fork (remember open-source ?). Maybe people will see you are right when they will see the actual technical benefits (if any) of what you are moaning about. At least, *that* would be a *productive* behaviour.
In the end, to me, it's just yet-another-fud post.
And now I'm going back to donotfeedtheenergybeast-mode, take care and ciao.
@Anon: sickening, I suppose personal attacks will follow ? Just ridiculous.
> There is nothing like that in Alp slides and
Slides 29-30, "Applications and bindings (I)", "Applications and bindings (II)". You moron!
> if you don't want Mono in Gnome just don't use what "depends" on Mono
Right now, it's possible. Tomorrow, when you will have stuff like:
-- hal-sharp;
-- NotifySharp as a libnotify client REPLACEMENT;
-- gnome-keyring-sharp as a REPLACEMENT for gnome-keyring;
it *won't* be possible anymore.
To quote exactly: "NotifySharp provides a client implementation for Desktop Notifications and works as a libnotify client replacement." What's unclear with the word REPLACEMENT?
Also, accurately: "gnome-keyring-sharp GNOME Keyring implementation, to get the keyring socket address." Here, "implementation" doesn't mean "wrapper/bindings", but "replacement".
You're simply a bunch of idiots. With your cleverness, you could have said that Hitler is a good guy, because you missed the slide that talked about the "final solution". Or maybe because Hitler initially didn't phrased it as "we'll kill the Jews", but "we'll only use quality Arians in all positions".
>> There is nothing like that in Alp slides and
>
>Slides 29-30, "Applications and bindings (I)", "Applications and bindings (II)". You moron!
I still don't see where it's explictly told "the _GNOME guys_ want not only to _replace libdbus with ndesk-dbus_, but _they_ want to nail down _everything_ so that the new ndesk-dbus/Mono bindings are used in _as much as possible_"
>> if you don't want Mono in Gnome just don't use what "depends" on Mono
>
>Right now, it's possible. Tomorrow, when you will have stuff like:
>-- hal-sharp;
>-- NotifySharp as a libnotify client REPLACEMENT;
>-- gnome-keyring-sharp as a REPLACEMENT for gnome-keyring;
>it *won't* be possible anymore.
And why that ? There are python binding for pretty much everything in gtk and gnome world still I can develop without them and other devs are still free to use their toolkit of choice. Don't fake trapping.
> To quote exactly: "NotifySharp provides a client implementation for Desktop Notifications and works as a libnotify client replacement." What's unclear with the word REPLACEMENT?
And what's unclear with "works as" ? I'm not a native english speaker but I think it's not the same sense that "will be a".
> Also, accurately: "gnome-keyring-sharp GNOME Keyring implementation, to get the keyring socket address." Here, "implementation" doesn't mean "wrapper/bindings", but "replacement".
*possible* replacement. You don't like it, then use another implementation. That's all.
> You're simply a bunch of idiots. With your cleverness, you could have said that Hitler is a good guy, because you missed the slide that talked about the "final solution". Or maybe because Hitler initially didn't phrased it as "we'll kill the Jews", but "we'll only use quality Arians in all positions".
"Consider well the proportion of things. It is better to be a young June-bug than an old bird of paradise." Same guy as your motto.
It really is funny how the tables have turned.
These days you find yourself running away from Gnome for fearing of losing your freedom in the future because of these Mono-bindings (also, the MIT/X11-license used for most of the mono-parts does *not* protect software freedom as GPL does) and now we Qt being licensed under the very latest GPL (v3)
> *possible* replacement. You don't like it, then use another implementation. That's all.
No, there is no guarantee that GNOME will be able to work without Mono. The SS guys (Miguel de Icaza, Jeff Waugh, etc.) are so hard pushing Mono into everything, down to the underlying daemons and libs, that GNOME will soon be the best possible desktop for Microsoft. Note that whatever will be released under MIT/X11 is eligible for "close-sourcedness" once Microsoft has decided to adopt it and make sure it works with .NET instead of Mono.
You're so blind. Just as Charlemagne & Daladier in 1938...
Woods,
MIT/X11 is not a bad licensing IMO. But when you *know* it's about Mono, which is "yet another .NET implementation, but cross-platform", you can be *very* worried about the future.
Everything that has something in common with Microsoft is like AIDS: a silent killer.
This is why Slackware still boots into runlevel 3 on boot.
This is also why Slackware comes with Xfce, blackbox, etc besides KDE.
We might just see a resurgence of Slackware once people realise the truth/value about freedom.
Or not.
P.S: Be on the conservative side of posting images on the blog for a couple of weeks( till the undersea cable is fixed), I'm having trouble even loading your blog.
Feels like I'm compiling the kernel when loading any web pages.
>MIT/X11 is not a bad licensing IMO.
I agree, it is a free license after all and as such there's nothing wrong with it.
But in this context it makes me worry just a bit more - exactly because of its eligibility for "close-sourcedness".
And you raise a valid point in noting that also current Mono-based applications are licensed under MIT/X11 and thus eligible for "close-sourcedness".
So is there anything stopping Microsoft from taking a popular application (eg. Tomboy, F-Spot) and turning it into a proprietary Windows .Net-application (don't worry Novell-users, that's why you have Mono, to run .Net-apps...)?
And now I'm just turning cynical...sigh.
Oops!
Quick fix #1: use lynx or links.
Quick fix #2: use Opera. Go to Tools -> Preferences -> Web pages -> Images, and select either "Cached images" or "No images". Enjoy the 1995-like Internet! :-)
Indeed it's a refreshing history lesson. What's next ? A possible family link between me, the sort-of Mono advocate of the devil, and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Laval, dubbed "Si le Diable avait une âme, il l'appellerait Laval" (If the Devil had a soul, he would call it Laval) in the past ? Ha and btw isn't moderated comments censure ? With your culture I'm pretty sure you know who used censure extensively in the past.
> No, there is no guarantee that GNOME will be able to work without Mono.
Haha, come on, you are a programmer too (according to your CV). If that's the case and if the situation is, to you, as catastrophic as the historical events you mentioned (so sad to compare something that futile to the death of people), then just use your fingers and rewrite what you don't like (Ho and did I tell you that GNOME is OpenSource ?). Someone talked about Gmono, why not Gnomono ?
> Note that whatever will be released under MIT/X11 is eligible for "close-sourcedness" once Microsoft has decided to adopt it and make sure it works with .NET instead of Mono.
After all the efforts they put in fuding Linux ? They would tell customers "Look, next Windows is built on top of Linux technologies". Their marketing folks are idiots, but not to that extent.
> MIT/X11 is not a bad licensing IMO. But when you *know* it's about Mono, which is "yet another .NET implementation, but cross-platform", you can be *very* worried about the future.
Which mean ? Still no argument. Are you trying to be rhetoric there ?
> isn't moderated comments censure ?
No, it's spam protection AND property protection. I pay for this blog, it's my property.
> Are you trying to be rhetoric there ?
Bien évidemment.
Alp Toker never worked for Ximian.
Also, there already exists a hal-sharp, gtk-sharp, gnome-sharp, etc.
The sky is falling, too bad you don't have an umbrella.
"""
Right now, it's possible. Tomorrow, when you will have stuff like:
-- hal-sharp;
-- NotifySharp as a libnotify client REPLACEMENT;
-- gnome-keyring-sharp as a REPLACEMENT for gnome-keyring; it *won't* be possible anymore.
"""
You are missing context. The context is "in a Mono application". Thus, hal-sharp lets you talk to HAL without having to use libhal, a C library. NotifySharp lets you talk to the notification daemon without having to use libnotify, a C library. gnome-keyring-sharp would be a replacement for gnome-keyring, which is -- I'm sure you'll guess this -- a C library.
These components are written for Mono applications, where it is better to use a "managed" implementation rather than wrap a C library. They have no use outside of Mono applications, and will *never* be used by the rest of the (C and Python, generally) desktop.
If you wanted to say that, you could have used "WRAPPER" instead of "REPLACEMENT".
You are not being serious here, are you? First of April post mistakenly posted on the wrong day, by chance?
I don't generally like many dynamic languages linked to core apps, because it's rather a waste of resources in my opinion. But your conclusions are ridiculously exaggerated. Replacing core libraries with new, managed applications? You know that's nonsense, admit it. I won't even lose a word on the license part.. crap, I did already.
I guess somebody must be there to scare the world. And even Richard Stallmann needs to have holidays.
Hopefully the author will update this post with a retraction noting the facts of the matter: libndesk-dbus is a Mono implementation of the D-Bus protocol -- rather like a binding, but it actually implements the protocol in managed code rather than using libdbus. It will be used (as is quite obviously intended) by Mono applications. It is not relevant or useful for the rest of the GNOME stack, and does not in any way, shape or form suggest that GNOME "depends" on Mono.
(Mono bindings are included in the regularly released GNOME Bindings suite, as are bindings for Python, Perl and Java. This is to be expected.)
Jeff,
In your comments on:
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/31/gnome-mono-depenency-dbus/
you're repeatedly:
-- refer to whatever you don't like as to "fear, uncertainty and doubt";
-- refer to "what the technically inept and misinformed reporters at this site would wish you to believe";
-- fail to understand that there is a HUGE difference between Mono and Python, in terms of technology (CLR means more than having an interpreted language), in terms of freedom and peace of mind, and also in terms of genesis (simply put, I don't need anything that has been initially designed by Microsoft);
-- bullshitting us by saying that we can "fully use GNOME (as released by upstream) without Mono"; yes, we can use GNOME, but not "fully", as long as Tomboy is OFFICIALLY part of GNOME... "AS RELEASED BY UPSTREAM";
You are LYING yourself when you say: "Those who say otherwise are either lying to you, are fundamentally misinformed, unable to do their own research, or have no interest in admitting that their bizarre claims are in fact wrong."
Also, when you say: "ultimately only Roy can fix his problem with truth and paranoia", and then (to Roy): "I really do wish you’d grow up and stop promoting such divisive misinformation and crap", you're simply an abject person.
I will definitely change the motto of my blog to:
"There is no such thing as free software: look how Mono (re)implements Microsoft .NET and pollutes GNOME."
"There is no such thing as common sense and good taste: look how KDE4 mimics Vista."
I'm not against C# and Mono itself, but what a fuck they doing in heart of our sweet Gnome?!?!?!
Virtual machine of C# will slow down the perfomance in anyway! In addition, jeopardizing whole project to potential war against Necrosoft is absolutely unacceptable decision!
Miguel! Please, THINK 100 TIMES before doing that!!! And than DO NOT do that!
> I'm not against C# and Mono itself
...but I am against them!!!
I find this blog post misinformed, sensationalized and insulting in it's misinformation. More so since one of the main developers of D-Bus and contributor to the Freedesktop ecosystem (myself), who is an officer on the GNOME Board and part of the GNOME Release team which approves modules, is readily accessible via irc or mail for something called fact checking. While ndesk-dbus does have a component that can replace the C version of the Bus that is not what is approved. What is approved is the bindings so that existing mono programs can talk to any other D-Bus application regardless of language (D-Bus is language agnostic and exists as a wire protocol specification).
All the other libraries you list as "proof" that GNOME is going mono are even more laughable because they are all bindings not reimplementation of existing infrastructure. To do so would be a tremendous undertaking in order to follow the very active communities developing the next generation HAL or NetworkManager (of which main developers I sit right next to at work).
If you want to live in fear and paranoia then there is not much we can do for you. If you want facts, you can always ask.
--
John (J5) Palmieri
BTW libdbus is now under a permissive license much like the MIT license.
First of all, I don't need to contact you for what you call "fact checking".
What I need is to have a Mono-free GNOME. What I can see is that Tomboy was not an accident, but only the beginning of making GNOME a whore penetrated by Mono, which is Microsoft .NET under disguise.
--
Secondly, I see you are having an e-mail address @redhat, and you seem supportive of the presence of Mono in GNOME. I consider this to be a shame, given the history of Red Hat as the #1 Linux company. Are you sure you don't want to apply for a position with Novell?
Tell me, what should I be running to be untainted by Microsoft technologies? Mac OS X, maybe?
I am sick of you, people. You are inseminating Linux (and BSD, and whatever can run GNOME) with the Microsoft pest.
It's not just a protocol, like Samba, it's a whole underlying technology, with a Common Language Runtime and all.
I am sure Microsoft is very happy to see this happening.
> First of all, I don't need to contact you for what you call "fact checking".
Ya, facts get in the way of a good argument.
Exactly. The facts are: (1) Mono is a pest; (2) GNOME is getting more and more contaminated with Mono.
I also guess you missed the last comment here: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/01/31/gnome-mono-depenency-dbus/#comment-5351
"...it raises a nasty spectre of a future where core Gnome components would be written with Mono and a small C-lib would be provided for legacy apps/libs."
>John Palmieri,
>While ndesk-dbus does have a component that can replace the C version of the >Bus that is not what is approved.
Of course not. But for people already worried about seeing Mono insinuate itself into Gnome the last thing they want to see included *even* as an external dependency is a Mono-implementation of a core desktop component. Especially if the developers of said component seem to be presenting it as a solid replacement.
>What is approved is the bindings so that existing mono programs can talk to any >other D-Bus application regardless of language (D-Bus is language agnostic and >exists as a wire protocol specification).
I take it you mean *package*-bindings (external dependency) because the package name says only ndesk-dbus, not ndesk-dbus-bindings.
Now, since D-Bus *is* implementation-neutral (ideally) as it is only a protocol-specification this of course means that if in the future some GNU/Linux-distro did include ndesk-dbus as the default, it would be a simple matter to replace it.
And I for one am happy to hear that libdbus is not languishing put developing at a brisk pace as that means in the future I *will* have something to replace ndesk-dbus with.
But with Tomboy, alas, I do not. And that is one point to the argument against having any Mono-dependencies in Gnome.
>BTW libdbus is now under a permissive license much like the MIT license.
When has this changed? Last I checked libdbus 1.1.4 was still under the GPL+AFL-license (as mentioned in the above slides)
> Now, since D-Bus *is* implementation-neutral (ideally) as it is only a protocol-specification this of course means that if in the future some GNU/Linux-distro did include ndesk-dbus as the default, it would be a simple matter to replace it.
Yep that is the point. I can't stop others from writing whatever they want. D-Bus is pretty simple to duplicate in any language because, well it is a simple wire protocol and messaging bus. Everything above it gets orders of magnitude more complex. The point is if you want to have a mono free GNOME then people should stop complaining and learn how to write code in C, Python, Java, etc. Tomboy is an excellent app but it too would be easy to clone. It is the only mono application that is part of the GNOME stack and is far from being part of the core packages. Here's a hint, you don't have to install it to use your GNOME desktop (and many distros allow you to do your own spin with the packages you want).
Let's all make another thing clear. Mono apps are currently the hardest applications to get into the GNOME stack. There are a lot of criteria including not pulling in any of the libraries outside of the Mono core (which for all intents and purposes is not in contention, if one really felt it was one would have to attack Samba with the same vigor). What is absolutely a deal breaker is if any of the other .net libraries are pulled in other than the ones that are approved and even then it is an uphill battle for an app to get in.
> But with Tomboy, alas, I do not. And that is one point to the argument against having any Mono-dependencies in Gnome.
You want to make an argument of that then fine, just don't blow it out of proportion and don't complain and expect others to do the work for you. The best way to make sure thing don't get worse from your viewpoint is to participate and write better applications. I'm not thrilled with Mono dependencies myself but I don't think I would be as efficient without an app like Tomboy.
>> BTW libdbus is now under a permissive license much like the MIT license.
> When has this changed? Last I checked libdbus 1.1.4 was still under the GPL+AFL-license (as mentioned in the above slides)
Recently we went through and got all copyright holders to reassign because the GPL + AFL was confusing and were blocking some corner cases such as GPL + exception apps. That was over half a year ago and after the 1.1.2 release. But you are right the COPYING file never got changed. I'll have to look into that before I release 1.2.0 this week.
BTW I'm not going to answer any more query's on this site. It has ads on it and while I don't mind people making money through ads I do mind driving visits to sites as poor as this one.
> Tomboy is an excellent app but it too would be easy to clone.
Then why have you accepted it as part of GNOME, instead of insisting that someone rewrites it in something decent?
> and is far from being part of the core packages.
It's not about *core*. It's about GNOME, period. Many distros come with Tomboy by default, as it's "part of GNOME", so people get EXE and DLL files by default on their Linux box! If this isn't crazy, then what is it?
> Mono apps are currently the hardest applications to get into the GNOME stack.
So why have you accepted to include Mono apps with GNOME in the first place, you morons?
> The best way to make sure thing don't get worse from your viewpoint is to participate and write better applications.
For people who are pushing EXE and DLL files into GNOME? Are you kidding me?
> if one really felt it was one would have to attack Samba with the same vigor
At least, it's not introducing EXE and DLL files, and it's rather a protocol, not more. Not a whole stack with a CLR, etc.
> I don't think I would be as efficient without an app like Tomboy.
Oh my. You can't live w/o Tomboy. You're alergic to Post-It notes on real paper...
> BTW I'm not going to answer any more query's on this site.
> It has ads on it and while I don't mind people making money through ads
> I do mind driving visits to sites as poor as this one.
John, you're simply a piece of shit!
In more than 2 years and half, this site has never had any ads such as Google contextual crap or whatever else. For about half a year, it's having a benign Amazon.com books banner at the bottom, and this only shows up in the individual pages for each article; should you read through the main page (the root of the site) and only navigate by the calendar, you would NEVER see any ad at all!
Not to mention that I NEVER made a single dollar out of this! (I'm still under $10, so I got nothing.)
But I forgot that having an Amazon.com banner is unacceptable for a piece of shit like you, while having Mono in GNOME is perfectly OK.
>The best way to make sure thing don't get worse from your viewpoint is to participate and write better applications.
Ah, but here we assume we're all programmers (and have the resources, eg. time)
Free software should be for everyone (and is that not why so much effort is seen to make eg. GNU/Linux-systems usable by everyone) and not just for programmers.
Granted, this is just one view in the FOSS-world...
On the other hand, if memory serves, Stallman did just that and a hell of a lot more. He rewrote quite a significant portion of the Symbolics Lisp-stack for LMI (please check references from gnu.org as I don't remember the specifics)
>I'm not thrilled with Mono dependencies myself but I don't think I would be as efficient without an app like Tomboy.
Tomboy (as an idea) *is* great. Unfortunately silent acceptance of Mono-dependencies is one the greatest dangers. It places convenience above freedom. And for myself the search for an alternative (the exact one, which to my knowledge doesn't exist yet, more's the pity)
Hey Béranger, I would love to read your comments about DotGNU (in this same Mono-Microsoft context).
DotGNU is a shameful idea. The best way of being independent of Microsoft's .NET Framework is simply not to use it -- I don't think it is such a tremendous technology that the humankind can't live without it; or, if we really can't live without it, then we should declare Bill Gates as the new God, and Microsoft as the new Scientology!
Apparently, DotGNU never issued anything past March 20, 2007.
What can a normal user do to stop this abuse of gnome ?
Those who are not developers dont have a say. The the one who develop are sold out to M$.
Its really the FOSS community who will pay for this in the end. This effects every FOSS user. Novell is just cashing on the hardwork of thousands of unpaid developers and selling it to M$ for money.
This issue affects every FOSS user. Novell should not be let to pillage the FOSS community.
Is there any way a gnome user can stop this ?
Comments are closed, complaints to info@.
This reminds me of a prehistoric dispute in Linuxland where some boys said 'KDE is a project that blablabla so we are gonna create the only free desktop blablabla and we are gonna call it GNOME so you can finally be free'.