I suggest jumping over to BBC to read the full interview and consider the role that the foreman had in coming up with this judgement.

I’d like to hear what the community thinks the consequences of this ruling will be for Ubuntu and Linux in general.  (Please make your voice heard in the comments below).

Although I don’t worry too much about Apple going after Ubuntu directly, I do wonder if this court decision will open a patent war with the big tech companies going out to stifle any competition; especially regarding software patents.

My fear is that as soon as something starts taking serious market share, they will come after it and without a large company with teams of lawyers to make a defense, our ability to use the software and devices of our choice may not be protected…

What’s your thoughts?

It’s just an opinion, but it seems to me that todays hardware is pushed to do more, faster, better, and so on. Given that hardware manufacturers are in the business to make money, it makes me wonder if some other facets of our hardware has not suffered somewhere? Sensitivity to power fluctuations, heat, EMI (electromagnetic interference), ESD (static electricity) maybe? Granted, when I started playing with computers, there was no such thing as cell phones, etc. that could effect computer equipment. And that equipment was no where near as powerful (or sensitive) as today’s equipment.

A case in point, the only reason why I have limited hardware issues (it really is the only reason), is that I operate my hardware in cooler environments (and air clean it regularly). Yet I still have had hardware failures. Also as a very lose guide, hard drives tend to fail (on average) after a few hundred  operating hours. It differs between manufactures, but there’s a bit more understanding on Wikipedia’s “Hard disk failure” post, there they also refer to the “Bathtub Curve” (an engineering aspect that describes decreasing, increasing and constant failure rates). Always make sure you have a backup of your backup (redundancy).

Side note: For those that don’t know me, I’ve been playing with computer’s since the early days, (to consumers at least) of the 1970′s

Case in point, I paid almost $300 for a high end cooling case on one box (and it works great – the sides even, always feel cold when in use). My servers (those on my LAN) operate in an ambient air temperature currently averaging at 16°C (in the summer they are moved and average 20°C).

On the boxes in my work area they average 22°C and I even use an external fan on them to remove radiant heat away from the fan intakes on those boxes, when the temperature goes up. Remember if the fans on your computer exhaust warm air, and then suck it back in, your PC is getting virtually zero cooling!

Granted, this has given me an environment with a lower failure rate than most, and still the odd time I loose a drive, optical drive, power supply (or network card), etc.

What a lot of people don’t realize, I think, is that static (ESD) we do not feel, can still damage components. A case in point for obvious ESD, last winter I was moving one computer, I reached to pick the box up and felt a static jolt. Because it was the case of the unit, I didn’t think it would have been an issue (I’d gotten away with that before). It was an issue, the network card got pooched. Another time I reached for the USB drive and pulled it out, no static or anything was felt, but the moment I touched it, my hard drive failed (because of static) and I could hear the speakers make a brief noise (and the USB drive was dead).

Finally, I’ve come across this again, and again, and again, avoid using a cell phone near your PC. Granted it’s not medical equipment, but the cell still radiates a relatively strong field (EMI) which can interfere with PC components. Given that today’s  hardware is becoming increasing specialized, it has to do more, store more, be faster, use less energy, etc., it’s much, much more sensitive as a result. You can in some circumstances, actually cause a data read and write error if the EMI field interferes with that operation – which over period of several errors (or one big one) can eventually “pooch” data or a file system.

Speaking of ESD… Commonly a static charge (like you get walking across a carpet) is about  the 10000V – 13000V range. That sounds very high, but remember that the amperage is super low. It’s the amperage that causes us (terminal at times) harm, not the voltage.

In winter, when humidity is low and it’s warm (from the heater or furnace) static shocks (ESD) hurt more (we feel that a lot). But it terms of our hardware and how we are able to feel ESD, charges below about 4000v are not felt. You can handle your hardware and never feel any ESD, but still have damaged components from low ESD voltages. Components can be damaged voltages as low as 400 volts!

Often, the component appears fine, but days, weeks, even months later, your computer may freeze up or start exhibiting strange symptoms. Damaged motherboards, memory, hard drives, etc. are generally easier to diagnose if they failed right after after you install it (“DOA”). Unfortunately low voltage ESD can also cause latent damage, by destroying a few microscopic parts out of the millions in a computer’s tiny circuitry. That is virtually almost impossible to diagnose, for us! And… the damage may not cause problems for a long time.

Hard drives are susceptible to being damaged by too much heat, excessive (or strong) vibrations, high humidity, EMI, ESD, RF (any strong microwave or other strong transmission). With an RF source, the amount of energy received falls quickly as the distance from that source increases, depending on the frequency, and the energy output of the source. Cell phones are not high output devices, but shouldn’t really operated to close anything that they could effect. (That’s one reason why hospitals require cell phones to be turned off).

So, remember to take all this into account to safeguard your hardware. Not forgetting to wear your tin foil hat, in front of your monitor, under a blanket, with the lights out…

On a serious note though, the biggest causes of hardware failure I’ve seen both personally and professionally are:

Heat
Dust & Dirt
Static Discharge

Heat being the all out #1 issue in my experience!!!

Why am I writing this post? Because I’m getting a lot of “help me” phone calls and email messages (it happens about this time every year) reporting PC problems, that are found to relate to some piece of hardware failing (or already failed). I hope the above information and advice will help some of you avoid “feeling the pain” of loosing some or all of your data.

Have something to add? Be heard! Please, feel free to add your comments below…

Some of them are really great (and we’ve probably seen before), but I just wanted to share them as it’s nice to watch cool things from time to time…

Flying Penguins:

Prodigy:

The Web Site is Down:

Ubuntu’s Da Bomb:

Promoting Linux:

Super Villain:

rm -rf:

For those new to linux, DO NOT run that rem -rf command you see in the above video.

Any good videos you would include?… add them to the comments!

Cheers!

Side note: Given the recent FUD in the news about Win7 black screening and Apple’s “Trust me” marketing, among other things, it’s no wonder the average consumer feels unsure.

A couple of things prompted me to write a post about Linux adoption experiences; for the average consumer, as in many ways, this really is a sociopolitical issue.

First,  I was talking to an old business partner the other day. Given the issues with Windows operating systems (he preferred to avoid) and the costs of Mac systems (he thought were to high), I suggested he give Ubuntu Linux a try. The response was somewhat dubious. As best I can recall here’s how the conversation played out (I have changed his name for the purposes of his post, let’s call him “Jake”):

Roger: “Why don’t you try Ubuntu?” If you don’t like it after a while, we can always move to another OS.

Jake: “No, Linux is difficult, I want a system that will just work”

Roger: “Well, Ubuntu has come a long way, it should be able to do what you need”

Jake: “I want to plug my camera in and have the photos copy to my system, I want to use Word. Linux is for geeks with technical knowledge, it’s not user friendly”

Roger: “It’s user friendly, I plug my camera in and Linux just uses it, and there’s all kinds of software, for free, that manages pictures. I use Open Office, my system just works! Besides, Linux adoption is increasing worldwide, we just don’t hear as much about that in the North American market”

Jake: “Not really, what about the kids in India for example? The schools all use Windows. Windows will always be the dominant system”

Roger: “Jake, the schools in India are encouraged to use Linux, and many of them do”.

Side note: (Indian schools to use homebrew Debian distro, Linux for 30,000 PCs at Schools in India, India’s largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds)

Jake: “Well, I don’t have time to learn something new. Linux is tricky and difficult, I prefer a system that just works”.

Roger: “Have you actually tried using Linux?”

Jake: (Tone of voice seems very unsure) “Well… yes, I tried it”.

The conversation drew to a close. Personally I know he’s never tried it as I’ve been taking care of his PC technical issues for years. Every single system he’s had (and used at work) is Windows based. Don’t misunderstand me, there’s nothing wrong with that (I have a Windows box on the network too).

The second motivation for this post was a CNet quote I saw on the DimDim site (I was looking for an Open Source Video Conferencing / Meeting solution):

“…solutions that remain islands, developed and deployed by one company, are much less interesting than open-source solutions that are developed and deployed by a community.”

Seems to me that Linux adoption’s primary barrier (in North America) is consumer perception (misguided or otherwise). Throughout other conversations with “Jake” as well as other clients, I found the focus of most people seemed to rest on the notion of OS superiority. Personally, I think that thought process is misplaced, particularly when it’s based on mistaken information or slick advertising. Having been in the IT arena for some years, and having had some not too nice experiences. It’s taken me some time and actually using multiple operating systems to realize some of the issues surrounding the relatively slow adoption of Linux. As one reader (Spode) mentioned in the post “Some Things Linux Can Do, That Windows Won’t “:

“…The problem is, people see Linux as a Windows “replacement”. It’s not. It’s an operating system in it’s own right – it’s like trying to compare a pick-up truck to a car. Close enough that you can try, but realistically – a pointless exercise”

Many have argued that the issue is related to the fact that Windows is the dominant desktop because it’s the easiest to use (“it just works”, is something I often hear).

Windows has always been good at locking competitors out of the OEMs using questionable methods, that (the news services inform us) have had them convicted of monopoly type abuse (by both the US and the EU) on more than one occasion.

Windows knows that Mac’s are mainly targeted to a niche market, thereby posing no real threat to their profit lines. Mac systems also don’t try to break into the OEMs. Linux on the other hand is already dominant in the Server market, it’s dominant in the “devices” market too, as such it could be perceived as a threat.  It appears that Windows will do almost anything to retain the loyalty of OEMs.

Another reader comment on an earlier post was more pointed in saying:

“Linux = I can install my OS and apps on a USB stick and take them with me, boot any PC and go. It just works.

Given the above, it’s no wonder that many resist Linux as all they’ve ever used (really used) is Windows – As it almost always preinstalled on every prebuilt PC or laptop they purchase. Personally, moving to Linux was a big step, I remember that the hardest thing (for me) was to realize that it was not very much different from using Windows, strictly in terms of the default GUI. I had preconceived notions that it would be difficult and tough to use and that there’d be very few applications to use. I was stunned at the shear wealth of applications and of the robust quality of them!

The bottom line really is (in my opinion) that companies are able to unfairly control the market (such as the case with Windows). It has nothing to do with OS superiority. Different operating systems each have their good and bad points.

In my opinion, the one barrier to faster Linux desktop adoption is the Linux community itself,  among them companies that develop Linux distributions.

I very rarely (maybe once every 10 years or so) see any advertising for Linux on Television (or on Radio).

I’ve never heard of “Linux” attempting to enter the OEM field (or develop their own).

The times I’ve seen Linux preinstalled (especially on Laptops), I found the cost was too high. (I could buy more powerful hardware for cheaper cost and install Linux myself).

I’ve seen no real incentives, Linux provides application developers to support Linux platforms.

On the flip side, North America it seems has groomed a PC consumer that:

Simply believes what they’re told in advertising (I’m talking about the general masses here, not about intelligent individuals).

Has little initiative to change, to learn, grow, try new things (OSs).

Is willing to pay a little more to conform with the general public perception.

Less motivated to try innovative solutions.

Granted the above are perceptions, but it seems to me the predominant issues surrounding the “What about Linux?” questions are best answered by those who build and support desktop and laptop hardware as well as those who develop software. Less short term thinking and more long term thinking, perhaps would be the best way to go.

Regardless of everything written above, it all boils down to the individual. How open minded are they, how adventurous, how tech savvy, how observant, and so on. Are they sheep or tigers? This issue smacks very much of “Eloi culture”.

Side note (from Wikipedia): Scottish social and cultural commentator Gordon P. Clarkson has termed contemporary Mass Culture “Eloi Culture” as he claims that it is creating a society of unthinking passive consumers of “meaningless trivia”.

Finally, I find the hardware support in Linux is actually better than in Windows. Having said that, I really think hardware developers and marketers need to reevaluate the sometimes excessive costing when selling preinstalled Linux systems. And… Software developers, like Steam, Adobe, etc. quite frankly should be aware enough to realize the long term growth of Linux (including the migration to it), and develop Linux based versions of their products. Again, the thinking needs to be LONG TERM, not a quick buck in the short term.

Funnily, on the spot, I found it easy to surmise all sorts of motivations and reasons as to making Linux (in this case Ubuntu) my primary operating system. In particular much of the discussion revolved around the uses of various operating systems and different ways of doing the same thing in various ones. It occurred to me then to try and verbalize things I could do with Linux, that I could not with Windows. That (for me at least) was a harder task and I didn’t come up with as much until I had time to think; on my way home.

I’m sure others could add much more than my thoughts below, needless to say, the following (below)  are some things I find I can do in Linux, that I cannot in Windows – that for me at least are very important.

1) Operate a complete operating system for free.

With Linux I can legally download and install a complete operating, without paying money for it, and without it being considered software piracy. While I can appreciate that many people may think they can use illegal torrents to download software (and evidently they do), it’s still illegal and puts such individuals at risk from RIAA (and the likes), as well as being in danger of potential criminal charges. I don’t have to worry about that. This saves me money, as the last time I checked the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate, it was around $200 CAN.

2) Keep my OS secure without excessive applications.

In Windows, I find I need to run and anti-virus, a firewall, an adware / spyware blocker, and use these tools every day. Personally, I find they consume a lot of resources on my Windows system (slowing it down), that I don’t have to do on my Linux system. Sure a firewall is always good to install regardless if the system is Linux or Windows – That’s a fair statement! But, my routers have built in firewalls. And, in reality, the Firewall on my Windows system is to stop suspicious software from calling out!

3) Install all my applications for free.

Much the same as installing a Linux OS for free (above), I remember being astonished at the wealth and availability of free software for Linux. In particular was the fact that I did not have to manually download, then install files, rather it was via the use of one simple command (aptitude install <whatever>), that handled everything. I don’t need to go to a store to buy software, I don’t need to use my credit card to buy it online either. If you’re not aware of how much free software is out there, a small view is here: Top 100 of the Best (Useful) OpenSource Applications.

4) Automatically update all my software and the OS.

With Windows, I notice that there  are  regular updates, patches, security, fixes, etc. to the OS. With Linux, my updates include the OS as well as all the applications! Needless to say, I’m happy that I can obtain the latest features, fixes, updates etc. in one update action on Linux, without having to manually update each application (which I have to do on my Windows box).

5) Easily carry or transfer my application settings.

In Linux, my application settings are stored in my home directory (/home/roger). Each application has it’s own folder ./filezilla, ./mozilla-thunderbird, and so on. I can copy all of these to my bootable USB drive and have them available wherever I am. I can even use them to transfer all my application settings to another PC, if I move or upgrade. I know that my Windows box does have some of the settings in folders too, but I also found out that there are a fair number of them stored in the Registry as well.

6) Install software and most updates without having to reboot.

Because Windows stores a lot of data in the registry, I find that I almost always have to reboot after installing software, or after OS updates and patches have been applied. I very rarely have this issue using Linux. When my Linux kernel gets updated, I can continue working with the old one, until I’m ready to reboot into the new one.

7) Better desktop customization.

Using my Windows box, I can install desktop customization packages that will change the look and feel of my desktop, that much is true. However, I find that I’m limited to what can be changed, in reality, it’s still the same desktop, no matter how different I make the graphics look. On my Linux box, it’s a much different story. Sure I can change the graphics (“skins”) or theme, but I can also change the window manager, the engine (GTK), the environment and the effects managers. If I wish to get into the nitty gritty, I have even greater granular control by being able to manually edit various configuration files.

8) I get better support because the code is visible Open Source.

When I need to fix something on my Windows box, I often find myself combing through forums and eventually find myself in the Microsoft knowledge base. In many respects I do the same thing with Linux. However, there’s one big difference. With Windows, if the fix requires a patch to the operating system, I have to wait for Windows Update to install it on my computer. With Linux, if I have the skills, I can create (and share) the fix myself, or use the fix provided by the community – I have never had to wait for a Linux based fix.

Will I still use both Windows and Linux on the network? Sure I will. But it’s nice to know some of the specific, tangeable differences.

Funnily, on the spot, I found it easy to surmise all sorts of motivations and reasons as to making Linux (in this case Ubuntu) my primary operating system. In particular much of the discussion revolved around the uses of various operating systems and different ways of doing the same thing in various ones. It occurred to me then to try and verbalize things I could do with Linux, that I could not with Windows. That (for me at least) was a harder task and I didn’t come up with as much until I had time to think; on my way home.

I’m sure others could add much more than my thoughts below, needless to say, the following (below)  are some things I find I can do in Linux, that I cannot in Windows – that for me at least are very important.

1) Operate a complete operating system for free.

With Linux I can legally download and install a complete operating, without paying money for it, and without it being considered software piracy. While I can appreciate that many people may think they can use illegal torrents to download software (and evidently they do), it’s still illegal and puts such individuals at risk from RIAA (and the likes), as well as being in danger of potential criminal charges. I don’t have to worry about that. This saves me money, as the last time I checked the cost of Windows 7 Ultimate, it was around $200 CAN.

2) Keep my OS secure without excessive applications.

In Windows, I find I need to run and anti-virus, a firewall, an adware / spyware blocker, and use these tools every day. Personally, I find they consume a lot of resources on my Windows system (slowing it down), that I don’t have to do on my Linux system. Sure a firewall is always good to install regardless if the system is Linux or Windows – That’s a fair statement! But, my routers have built in firewalls. And, in reality, the Firewall on my Windows system is to stop suspicious software from calling out!

3) Install all my applications for free.

Much the same as installing a Linux OS for free (above), I remember being astonished at the wealth and availability of free software for Linux. In particular was the fact that I did not have to manually download, then install files, rather it was via the use of one simple command (aptitude install <whatever>), that handled everything. I don’t need to go to a store to buy software, I don’t need to use my credit card to buy it online either. If you’re not aware of how much free software is out there, a small view is here: Top 100 of the Best (Useful) OpenSource Applications.

4) Automatically update all my software and the OS.

With Windows, I notice that there  are  regular updates, patches, security, fixes, etc. to the OS. With Linux, my updates include the OS as well as all the applications! Needless to say, I’m happy that I can obtain the latest features, fixes, updates etc. in one update action on Linux, without having to manually update each application (which I have to do on my Windows box).

5) Easily carry or transfer my application settings.

In Linux, my application settings are stored in my home directory (/home/roger). Each application has it’s own folder ./filezilla, ./mozilla-thunderbird, and so on. I can copy all of these to my bootable USB drive and have them available wherever I am. I can even use them to transfer all my application settings to another PC, if I move or upgrade. I know that my Windows box does have some of the settings in folders too, but I also found out that there are a fair number of them stored in the Registry as well.

6) Install software and most updates without having to reboot.

Because Windows stores a lot of data in the registry, I find that I almost always have to reboot after installing software, or after OS updates and patches have been applied. I very rarely have this issue using Linux. When my Linux kernel gets updated, I can continue working with the old one, until I’m ready to reboot into the new one.

7) Better desktop customization.

Using my Windows box, I can install desktop customization packages that will change the look and feel of my desktop, that much is true. However, I find that I’m limited to what can be changed, in reality, it’s still the same desktop, no matter how different I make the graphics look. On my Linux box, it’s a much different story. Sure I can change the graphics (“skins”) or theme, but I can also change the window manager, the engine (GTK), the environment and the effects managers. If I wish to get into the nitty gritty, I have even greater granular control by being able to manually edit various configuration files.

8) I get better support because the code is visible Open Source.

When I need to fix something on my Windows box, I often find myself combing through forums and eventually find myself in the Microsoft knowledge base. In many respects I do the same thing with Linux. However, there’s one big difference. With Windows, if the fix requires a patch to the operating system, I have to wait for Windows Update to install it on my computer. With Linux, if I have the skills, I can create (and share) the fix myself, or use the fix provided by the community – I have never had to wait for a Linux based fix.

Will I still use both Windows and Linux on the network? Sure I will. But it’s nice to know some of the specific, tangeable differences.

More importantly, I run several distributions of Linux in virtual environments. This way I don’t have to worry about multiboot configurations, bootloaders, etc. and I can simply delete or backup up a copy of images I don’t immediately need. To do this I use VirtualBox.

To get it: sudo aptitude install virtualbox or apt:virtualbox

From time to time I come accross an image I’d like to be able to boot in my virtual environment (VirtualBox), only to find that the site only hosts the VMware version for download. Fortunately, there’s an easy way for me to convert the files from the original .vmdk to VirtualBox’s .vdi. Actually, it’s a two-set method.

1. Convert the .vmdk to a .bin file
2. Convert the .bin file to .vdi

In order to convert the image to .bin, were going to need qemu:

sudo aptitude install qemu or apt:qemu

To convert the .bin to a.vdi, we’ll need the VBoxManage package, which is included when you install VirtualBox.

Here’s how the conversion process plays out:

Convert the downloaded VMware image like this:

qemu-img convert xxxxxx.vmdk xxxxxx.bin (where xxxxxx is the name of the file).

Then convert the .bin like this:

VBoxManage convertdd xxxxxx.bin xxxxxx.vdi (where xxxxxx is the name of the file).

I should note that I originally started using VMware as my virtualization platform, then switched to VirtualBox. Converting the images, saved me a fair bit of time reinstalling all the different linux systems!

Update June 20, 2009: As an after thought, I should try the command this way:

qemu-img convert xxxxxx.vmdk xxxxxx.bin && VBoxManage convertdd xxxxxx.bin xxxxxx.vdi (again, where xxxxxx is the name of the file).

Have a comment, suggestion or better way? Please comment below. A GUI application that can do this? – Again, please comment and let me know. Hope this post helps some of you!

In my system, it was installed by default. If you don’t have it available, the command to install is:

sudo aptitude install espeak or simply click: apt:espeak

To realize what I’m talking about, run this command in terminal:

espeak “eSpeak is a compact open source software speech synthesizer for English and other languages, for Linux and Windows.   eSpeak produces good quality English speech. It uses a different synthesis method from other open source TTS engines, and sounds quite different. It’s perhaps not as natural or “smooth”, but I find the articulation clearer and easier to listen to for long periods. It can run as a command line program to speak text from a file or from stdin. A shared library version is also available. It works well as a Talker with the KDE text to speech system (KTTS), as an alternative to Festival for example. As such, it can speak text which has been selected into the clipboard, or directly from the Konqueror browser or the Kate editor. A Gnome Speech driver is now available.”

or another language:

espeak -vfr “eSpeak compact est un logiciel open source synthèse vocale pour l’anglais et autres langues, pour Linux et Windows. eSpeak produit de bonne qualité discours anglais. Il utilise une autre méthode de synthèse à partir d’autres moteurs de TTS open source, et des sons très différents. C’est peut-être pas aussi naturelle ou “smooth”, mais je trouve l’articulation claire et plus facile à écouter pendant de longues périodes. Il peut fonctionner comme un programme en ligne de commande pour parler du texte d’un fichier ou à partir de stdin. Une version de la bibliothèque est également disponible. Cela fonctionne bien comme un Talker KDE avec le système de synthèse vocale (KTTS), comme une alternative au Festival, par exemple. À ce titre, il peut parler du texte qui a été sélectionné dans le presse-papier, ou directement à partir de Konqueror, le navigateur ou l’éditeur Kate. A Gnome Discours driver est désormais disponible”

While I find the voice is not as natural, I do find it easier to understand than some others. I wondered is there could be some changes to the voice however, so I took a look at the espeak documentation, and there are some switches we can use to tweak.

To get a listing of the available voices, the command is:

espeak –voices

To enable the Germanvoice, the switch would be -vde, for French, -vfr and so on. Kind of interesting isn’t it? But so far it’s not really anything I can use! I want it to be able to read documents or web pages out loud while I’m doing something else. Well… I found out it can do that!

If I combine the wget command with espeak, it will get the appropriate web page and then read it. Here’s an example:

wget -qO – http://espeak.sourceforge.net/add_language.html | espeak -m -ven

The above command optains the web page and then the -m -ven switches ensure the page is read out (and that it’s not simply repeating the code). I found the speech a little fast, but you can slow it down sith the “s” switch like this:

wget -qO – http://espeak.sourceforge.net/add_language.html | espeak -m -s 140 -ven

More switches as Command Line Options can be found on the site. Either way, I found it interesting enough to jot this post off to all of you. I could go on and on, but thing it’s better for those interested to play with it and see what works for them (instead of just reading about it). If anything, I did have a bit of fun with this!

I’d be very interseted (I guess we all would), in hearing what any of you use to read web pages, documents and so on… Please feel free to comment your input or suggestions blow.

Have fun!

“Hey UbuntuLinuxHelp,

I really liked your article, if nothing else it does help me see where some people, especially outsiders, are coming from on this issue. First I should mention that I am a core developer of GNOME Do and as such I obviously hold a positive view of Mono. I’d like to share my view on this whole thing, and I will take it piece by piece. Please keep in mind that as you read it, I intend it all with a very even, and calm tone. I hope it comes across well.

anti-Mono camp:
Most of them are fairly level headed and will have a decent talk with you actually. Some however have spammed our bug tracker and mailing list in the past and left defamatory comments about my personal work. It is upsetting that someone would do that to something I do in my free time. I do not push it on anyone after all. I’d really like to see a lot of the emotions put aside so we can have a real nice talk about the serious issues.

pro-Mono camp:
We have made mistakes and been a bit too strong sometimes. I have gotten too upset when my bugtracker gets spammed or someone tells me I am trying to kill Linux. We need to be clearer, and calmer.

Microsoft (patents ignored):
I don’t think it matters that Microsoft comes up with the spec (I will cover the patent thing, please wait). Microsoft is a company like any other and the fact that they invented C# makes it no worse than if AT&T had invented it or if Sun had or Apple. However Microsoft does get a bigger knee jerk reaction.

Microsoft Patents:
I am not a lawyer, but here is my view. There are parts of mono that are covered by patents here and there, but they are the System.Data namespace and the System.Windows.Forms namespace. Neither of these seem to be used by open source apps such as Banshee/Tomboy/F-Spot/GNOME Do. This nicely sidesteps most of the patent issues to start with, after all, we use GTK# and SQlite. If there are other potential violations someone calmly pointing them out so they too can be avoided would be nice. Nobody seems interesting in actually resolving this, they just want to use it as a way to throw out the baby with the bath water.

The rest of the language is available as an EMCA spec and is therefore not covered by any patents (as goes my understanding). Additionally there is supposed to be royalty free license available, however it has been shown to be difficult (maybe impossible?) to obtain. Someone should exhaustively explore this. I read about someone that did try, but they seemed way too content to say its not easy and didn’t really push to hard for it. No lawyers got involved, which they probably should have.

Mono is for Developers:
So are libraries, like libc, but we ship them because applications use them. The reason mono gets shipped is not because you use it, but because an application you use uses it. Additionally Ubuntu only ships the parts of mono that applications are actually using (you dont have to install the whole thing). The parts clearly covered by patents are not shipped by default at all. Again, I am not a lawyer (and neither is the other side) so we need to really get one involved to find out for sure how this all should be handled.

Risk to the User:
The user is not at risk. Who is MS going to sue? You the user, or me the software developer? If I get sued I wont be dropping the project, worse comes to worse I’ll port it but the chances of it going that far are slim to none. Not to mention there is quite a bit of a patent portfolio on both sides. Something of a patent cold war, they sue us, we sue them, everyone loses. Still, no risk to the end user, even if things go nuclear.

Why Ubuntu Ships It:
Ubuntu ships it because the applications that are the best of the best use Mono (some of them). Tomboy is still better than GNote as it has a more vibrant developer community around it and more plugins. F-Spot is better than gThumb as gThumb is not actually a photo manager, its file system based, not tag based. Banshee is probably going to be replacing Rhythmbox for those who paid attention to the Ubuntu Developers Summit. This will mean that the default music player on Ubuntu will also by mono based. In all fairness, banshee is much more actively developed than Rhythmbox (which is hardly maintained these days). As a distro, Ubuntu makes a good choice to ship software that is developed actively over software that is hardly maintained, regardless of language.

HDD Space:
Its a weird argument. Mono in full uses less than a pennies worth of hard drive space. Yeah its 50MB, but so are 10-15 mp3’s. It’s not that much really. I can see the argument made for it making space on the install CD however. That makes sense until they try to push GNote which requires gtkmm which will take up sizable space to get all the C++ bindings for gnome in there. That and somebody would have to write a reasonable replacement for f-spot.

Memory Requirements:
This is a completely bunk argument. I’ve fixed maybe 100 memory leaks in GNOME Do since I started hacking it. 90% of those leaks were from the C libraries we were binding. The truth is, its easier to leak memory in C where you have to do your own memory management. We have sent 3 or 4 patches upstream to fix big ones and they have fixed the rest or provided us a way to get around the leaks. The runtime itself has maybe a 10MB penalty on memory, but that does not grow with time, and is shared between all mono apps running at the time. In fact the more mono apps you run, the more memory they will share which can often result in a net gain of free memory. To be honest however, we are not nearly there yet, thats just a “imagine if” kind of thing.

Anyhow, thats how I feel. I am not a lawyer, just a coder and developer. I would love to hear what other people think, so long as they can express it rationally and simply without getting emotional over the issue. Also if anyone actually is a lawyer, please let us know =)

DBO”

Thanks “DBO”, as I’m sure all readers, appreciate input from developers such as yourself. I think it helps to at least garner a better understanding of the issues at hand. I didn’t know that GNOME Do was in Mono (for example).

I appreciate also your experiences with the anti-Mono (and pro-Mono) camp. Personally I don’t like mud slinging, derogatory attacks, etc. regardless which side participates in such activities. When that type of discourse happens, it’s just plain wrong, rude and ignorant – And I’ve seen both sides participate in such activities. In my opinion, people who behave this way (regardless if they are pro or con Mono) should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe I’m somewhat naive, but I think this world has enough problems without people fostering new ones using bad behavior.

If you’re not aware, I used to be a Windows only user. You can read more background in Why I Quit Windows and Switched to Linux.

I actually do agree with you that it does not matter who came up with an idea – It really doesn’t. I find it very vexing when a developer works hard to produce something and then get personally attacked because his services were rendered to a body that many have an issue with. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with some of the things these companies do, but I understand that developers et al, need to put food on the table. I guess my concerns are not with the developers (in this case of Mono), but rather with Canonical/Ubuntu – Canonical is calling the shots, they have the final say, right? I just cannot understand why Ubuntu is not stating their position. I can’t find any statements from Ubuntu (or Canonical) about this issue anywhere – Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m not a developer (this much is obvious), I’m concerned with the issue because, it appears, there may be a risk to us as Ubuntu Linux users. This concern was raised by a post I saw at the Free Software Foundation site: Gnome goes Mono and jumps into the Patent Trap, where it says:

“…since Novell has closed a patent deal with Microsoft… which undoubtedly also covers the .NET patents. However, all conventional Linux and Open Source vendors would not be able to distribute Gnome as it would be covered by the .NET patents Microsoft owns.

This amounts to an easy way for Novell to effectively lock in Gnome users to their own products. Gnome would no longer be a real Free Software project, even though the code remains freely available…”

As an end user, I found this very alarming. I stopped using Windows as my primary platform for just this reason! I don’t want to be subjected to forced brand loyalty, less than high quality software (because of a monopoly), etc.

What also concerns me is that developers who work hard to produce applications might find that they are subject to the whims of Mono’s status?

In retrospect, I think the whole crux of the issue, unless I am mistaken, is that nobody ever said Mono should be discarded! What was actually proposed is to have it moved to the repositories (off the CD). Unless I am not aware of something, I don’t see this as an issue. I remember having to use the repositories to install quite a few things that I wanted. So again, I say to both the pro and con groups, I don’t think anybody proposed removing Mono, rather moving it to the repositories instead. So… What’s the big problem with taking it off the CD?

I didn’t realize that Mono is included by default because some applications used it; until I found out that Tomboy uses it. I assumed that the complete Mono package was installed, I did not know that only the parts some applications needed were included. So… you’re telling us that the “parts” under the patents issues (and other concerns) are NOT used by default? Is that right? Wow! Is this correct? If that’s the case, does this issue not become a bit more mute? To me, the understanding is akin to Adobe Flash, I don’t want to install Flash on Ubuntu (via Wine or otherwise), but I have no problem with the Flash Player. Is this the same type of issue?

I’m not too sure I agree that there is no risk to the user. I don’t think the Ubuntu user community is concerned about legal actions from Microsoft? Instead, I think they are concerned with “anti-trust” type activities, as alluded to in the Free Software Foundation quote above. Additionally, another reader of this blog posted a link Why Mono is Currently An Unacceptable Risk, wherein similar concerns are raised.

I understand now why Mono is shipped with Ubuntu, and it raises the question, just how many of the applications use it? I like RythumBox (and KDE based Amarok). I’ll be honest, when I read that Banshee might be the new default Mono based player, I truly did think “Oh my God, were the people right in their concern that Mono will take over?” It begged the question, just how many of our applications in Ubuntu are Mono based? This aside, I can’t offer an opinion on which applications are better or otherwise, as I’ve not actively used all of them (I have opinions about them, but that’s about it <smiling>).

With regards to the memory issue, do I understand correctly? The memory issues are with the applications, not Mono? As a side note, I’m not sure what to call “Mono”, I understand there is the “Mono” used to develop the applications and then the Mono “stuff” those applications need to run (where we don’t have to install the “developing” Mono).

So why can’t Mono just be moved to the repositories? Why is Ubuntu remaining silent on this issue? How come other Linux distributions don’t have to use Mono?

“What’s the scoop with mono (I don’t use it), I’ve seen a fair bit of flame wars over it. I appreciate that it can be removed. Why aren’t some people happy with that (the ability to remove it)? I guess I’m missing something there? I would think if nobody used it anymore (or the majority stopped using it) that it would go the way of the Dodo – No?”

And received this reply:

“Yes, it’s currently a political hot potato, but, in my view, there is an issue about its use which is significant and should really be an informed choice to use or not to use. The debate is over-heated, with ludicrous statements on both sides of the fence. The fact that mono is largely Novell-backed doesn’t sit comfortably with the community at the moment, and the way that it is being pushed into the default installation of Ubuntu and Debian (Fedora have decided against it) via gnome is a judgment call with which some find inflammatory. It is a working of a current and critical Microsoft technology, whose legal status is, until MS chooses to clarify it, debatable. That’s enough to make me uncomfortable, but, on top of that, for me, I prefer zim and gthumb to the two apps that ship as default which require mono – tomboy and f-spot. The fact that by replacing those two apps, nearly 50MB of disk space is saved is a bonus.”

Needless to say, the answer was astute in that it summarized some issues in a precise and clear manner:

1. The issue of choice (an informed choice) is raised. “Informed” being the key word here.
2. Some of the animated issues are exacerbated as a result of excessive posturing (on BOTH sides) of the argument.
3. Some do not feel comfortable that Mono is largely Novell backed.
4. Mono being pushed through to default installations upsets some users.
5. Mono is a Microsoft technology, and perhaps its legal status is unclear.
6. Other applications can be substituted.
7. The removal of Mono can save a large amount of disk space.

Do I want Mono? Clearly my “Yes or No” needed to be an informed decision. After all, I use Tomboy Notes (a lot!) and need to migrate them prior to removing Mono, should that be the appropriate thing to do.

While beginning my research, one thing I found particularly annoying is the crying, shrieking and clothes ripping found in some blog posts. Of particular note was Linux Canuck’s post “Ubuntu is Driving Me Away“. In my opinion, statements such as “…Anything that starts with Microsoft and goes via the sellout, Novell, cannot be good…”, “…Mono has infected Gnome. Ubuntu uses Gnome…” and “…Why use anything that is tainted when I can use something that is not? Mono and Novell are tainted and will be forever in my eyes…” only further increase anger, resentment, etc. and (in my opinion) serves to demonstrate to new users that Linux (Ubuntu) is not the happy, cooperative place, that I think it is. Inflammatory statements such as these (and statements on other sites) only make Ubuntu Linux users look bad. Yes, there may be issues with Microsoft. Yes, there may be issues with Novell and evidently there may be issues with Mono – But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. If I don’t like something in an OS (and there’s lots I don’t like in various distributions of Linux – Including Ubuntu), I don’t think leaving is the answer. To me at least (for the moment) insinuating the ditching of Ubuntu for another OS (because of Mono) is like having my arm amputated because I have a cut on my finger. In my opinion these excessive emotional outbursts are not helping to inform people. After reading this particular post, I was still no closer to finalizing a choice. However, it did give me insight into the passionate positions of some Ubuntu users. While I did think the blog posters expressions were “over the top”, I did appreciate the sentiments.

On another post Boycott Novell also suggests leaving Ubuntu:

“…What exactly is happening with Mono in Ubuntu? This is not intended to seem like a complaint about Ubuntu, but maybe a constructive way forward would be voting with the feet and rewarding distributions that do listen and do recognise the problems with Moonlight and Mono…”

All this posturing and air blowing makes a user such as myself feel that perhaps there’s a minority of people trying to stamped the heard into removing Mono? One thing I value with Linux, is that we are not sheep and cattle, many of us are a little more informed and sophisticated – And free to make our own choice. Score 1 to the “Yes” camp – Leave Mono in?

Have you seen the Poll “Should Mono be included by default in Ubuntu?”

Looking at Ubuntu’s brainstorm site I found “Idea #110: No Mono by default in Ubuntu ” where it said:

“…Remove Mono and dependent applications from default Ubuntu Desktop CD. Mono occupies a significant amount of the valuable space on the live cd that could be used for translations and other things. Applications using mono use much more memory than their non-mono counterparts. Functionality can be provided by other applications that are just as good.

This will NOT remove Mono or any of the applications from the Ubuntu repositories, just the default Desktop CD. (Although removing them from the CD may mean they don’t need to be in Main anymore)

This affects two applications included by default: tomboy and f-spot. Tomboy can be replaced by either sticky notes or zim and f-spot by gthumb…”

Again, the issue of space is raised as well as the issue of memory – In that the writer suggests that non-Mono boxes use less RAM than Mono boxes. To me at least, the memory and disk space issues are relevant points to consider. Ubuntu’s wiki page: No-Mono-by-Default backed this issue up with their statement:

“…An official developer tests to see if Mono is still the best choice for Ubuntu in a clear documented manner, by testing the “expected next version shipping code” of: gThumb F-Spot Tomboy

It is also part of this spec that if gThumb is determined to replace F-Spot, Tomboy should be removed as 50 MB is far to much for one note-taking application on the default CD…”

As such my current thought includes removing it, score 1 for the “Nos” – I can save space and memory usage, I like that!

Mono largely backed by Novell? Well… First of all, What is Mono? and Do I need it? Let’s check their site:

“…Mono is a cross platform, open source .NET development framework…” and “…The Mono Project aims to make developers productive and happy: Mono 2.4 is our gift to the world. Sponsored by Novell (http://www.novell.com), the Mono open source project has an active and enthusiastic contributing community and is positioned to become the leading choice for development of Linux applications…”

A few thoughts came to mind…

I’m not a .net developer, I don’t need this. The second statement I though was very presumptuous (to say the least). Mono is their “gift to the world” and positioned to be the leading choice for Linux application developers? I’m not a developer, and (laughing) I’m not a gift to planet earth (although I like to think I am at times), but I suspect these statements are somewhat boasting in nature? However, personal thought aside. Score 1 for the “Nos”, I’m not a .net developer, nor a Linux developer, so I don’t need this.

Based on the above, I think back to the emotion in Linux Canuck’s blog and wonder if he’s not simply looking at this issue from an emotional end-user perspective? While the statements he made were very inflammatory in my opinion, again, that post gave me pause. I wonder then what Linux application developers have to say about mono? I decided to search Google using Why Mono should be included in Ubuntu by default. Near the top there were a bunch of post’s I already read, then I found the search result “APEBOX.ORG – » Blog Archive » Here we go again – why Mono doesn’t suck“. As I read the post, there were a lot of pros as to the benefits of Mono, in particular is the statement “…Mono provides a well-balanced framework to enable Free Software to be developed quickly, effectively, and efficiently…” However, I’m not a developer, so this (Mono) is not useful to me.

Further down the statements that really caught my attention were:

“…Why Mono should be included in Ubuntu by default

It shouldn’t. Not in the sense that has been publicised on blogs, newsgroups, forums, and so on. We don’t want Mono installed by default on any distribution. Mono is a software platform, and software platforms are boring at a user level. Ubuntu shouldn’t ship with Java, Scheme, Assembly, LISP, etc, frameworks by default either. They are not interesting to users…”

So it seems to me, that even some developers are maintaining and impartial view in the sense that the inclusion or removal of Mono should be solely based upon the user – That is the freedom to choose. I also read several other posts on countless blogs that alluded to Fedora removing it from the default installation. It really begs the question why Ubuntu is not doing this? In fact, I could not find a substantial statement, from Ubuntu, as to the reasoning behind their default inclusion.

On Free Software Daily, I found a disturbing link to Gnome goes Mono and jumps into the Patent Trap, wherein they state:

“…A couple of years back, the Gnome desktop environment developers have taken the decision to reengineer the Gnome desktop around the Mono framework. This decision has mainly been influenced by… a very vocal employee of Novell. Recent developments thus request us to recall the pieces of the puzzle in order to understand what might really be going on.

Reasonable doubt has been rased to whether or not Mono can actually be deployed freely. Mono itself is basically a free and halfway portable implementation of the .NET framework developed by Microsoft. However, the .NET framework itself is subject to a large amount of software patents, which cover the concepts used within the .NET framework. Since these are concepts and not individual implementations (which are covered by Copyright, which is certainly untouched by a reimplementation), they most likely also apply to the Mono framework.

…since Novell has closed a patent deal with Microsoft… which undoubtedly also covers the .NET patents. However, all conventional Linux and Open Source vendors would not be able to distribute Gnome as it would be covered by the .NET patents Microsoft owns.

This amounts to an easy way for Novell to effectively lock in Gnome users to their own products. Gnome would no longer be a real Free Software project, even though the code remains freely available…”

If this is indeed the case, it makes me (and end-user) wonder if I should not drop Gnome and use KDE instead. I don’t want to leave Ubuntu. For me at least this is ahead of the game. Will I remove mono from my system? Probably yes, because:

1. I’m not an application developer and therefore don’t need it.
2. I want my system to use less memory and hard drive space.
3. I personally, do not agree with some of the reasons for including Mono as the default.

Should Mono be included in an Ubuntu install by default? Honestly, I don’t know because I have not seen any information directly from Ubuntu (or Canonical) as to why they are going to continue including it, maybe there is a valid reason of which I’m not aware – I don’t know. If anyone from Ubuntu reads this post, I really hope they can shed some light on the Ubuntu position.