It s seeming increasingly likely that reports regarding the future of Banshee, Tomboy, and the rest of the Mono stack in the default Ubuntu desktop install are accurate. Ubuntu 12.04 will likely be the first Ubuntu release since 5.10 not to ship with any Mono apps in the default install ending a run of 12 releases over 6 years. The decision seems to have come about during the default apps session at the Ubuntu Developer Summit just ended in Orlando, Florida. Prior to heavy vandalism, the only reasons cited for the change in the UDS session log are Banshee not well maintained and porting music store to GTK3 is blocked on banshee ported to GTK3 . Other reasons mentioned but not in the session logs are complaints that it doesn t work on ARM. I m using a lot of conjecture in this first paragraph because the news about the decision appeared on the blogosphere before anywhere else. The first many Banshee or Tomboy developers read about it was reading a flurry of activity on the Tweetosphere from the anti-Mono activists declaring victory. So first, a word on the cited reasoning. Banshee works fine on ARM, since Mono works fine on ARM. Xamarin, the company behind most upstream Mono work, earns their income almost entirely from ARM versions of Mono, running on the varied ARM implementations found in smartphones. Every major Banshee release is personally tested on my Genesi EfikaMX, an ARM system with a Freescale i.mx51 processor. I ve also demonstrated Banshee running in an Ubuntu chroot on my HP Touchpad, an ARM-based tablet. What is known is that Banshee has some problems running on Texas Instruments OMAP4 processors the target ARM platform for Canonical s ARM work. None of the Banshee upstream developers, Mono upstream developers, or Mono Ubuntu team has ever been able to reproduce the cited problems, since problems specific to an exact ARM chip are impossible to reproduce without the requisite hardware and none of us owns an ARM system matching Canonical s target. That Banshee is still a GTK+2 app is true. A port to GTK+3 is almost complete, but blocking on a single technical bug deep within GTK# s guts, which could be fixed by someone with sufficient knowledge of GTK+ semantics. Nobody with the required GTK+ knowledge has stepped forward with a fix at this point in time. As for the final point, that Banshee is not well maintained, this seems like a directed personal insult against the active and responsive Banshee maintainer, Chow Loong Jin, and upstream bug triager David Nielsen, in addition to the immeasurable hours contributed free of charge for the benefit of Ubuntu users by various other members of related Mono app and library teams, including myself. I need to stress at this point that my annoyance with this decision has nothing to do with the actual app changes. Keeping Tomboy and gbrainy, at a cost of about 25 meg of unsquashed disk space, is a hard argument to make compared with those two plus Banshee for 40 meg. Dropping gbrainy and Tomboy, and switching to Rhythmbox, will save about 30 meg of unsquashed space, all told.I m unconvinced that Rhythmbox is a technically superior app to Banshee several features which were gained by the first app swap will be lost again but that s another long tedious argument to be had. No, what has me deeply angered is the shambolic way the changes were made and announced. Significant accommodations were made by Banshee upstream in order to make life easier for Canonical to integrate Banshee into their OS. For one thing, that s why the Ubuntu One Music Store support is a core Banshee feature, not part of the third-party community extensions package. If Banshee was being considered for replacement due to unresolved technical issues, then perhaps it would have been polite to, I don t know, inform upstream that it was on the cards? Or, if Canonical felt that problems specific to their own itches required scratching, then is it completely beyond the realm of possibility to imagine they might have spent developer resources on bug fixing their OS and sending those fixes upstream? Or even and call me crazy providing access for upstream to specialized hardware such as a $174 Pandaboard to empower upstream to isolate and fix unreproducible bugs specific to Canonical s target hardware? And here s where it gets more astonishing for me Canonical paid money to ship one of the community-based packagers responsible for the stack, Iain Lane, to Orlando for UDS, and didn t think it was worth bothering to perhaps inform him hey, the stuff you work on is in danger of being axed from the default install, maybe you should go to this session . So I m not cross that the stuff I work on has been removed from the default install. I intend to continue working on it as I have for the last 4 years, through my work in Debian. No, why I m cross that I heard about it from fucking Boycott Novell. Regardless of your opinions regarding Banshee or its stack, if you read the above and don t see it as an abysmal failure of community engagement by a company whose community manager wrote a book on the damn topic, then there s something seriously wrong with your understanding of how community labour should be seen as a resource. Maybe someone at Canonical should try reading Jono s book. It s not a first-time offence, and this mail from a PiTiVi developer regarding changes in 11.10 makes for useful further reading. [edit] There is some worthwhile discussion going on on the ubuntu-desktop mailing list covering the technical issues surrounding the decision, I would suggest it s a good place for ongoing technical discussion.

A very popular refrain on tech sites is that the high street cannot support multiple competing phone ecosystems. It s a reasonable position to take. Do phone stores want to train their employees on six or seven different OSes? Do consumers understand the differences, and should they need to? Do app developers want to rewrite their app six or seven times? The obvious answer to all of these is no . Stores only want to train their employees once, developers want to write their app once. Choice is bad, because choice is complicated. You can have it in any colour, so long as it s black. The problem is, we need those competing efforts, for the entire market to increase in quality. Until the iPhone appeared on the market, Google s nascent mobile phone OS looked more like a poor man s Blackberry OS than what ended up shipping on the HTC Dream and later devices. Windows Phone 7 didn t ship with any multitasking at all and now the Mango update will be incorporating a multitasking model largely thieved from WebOS. iOS only just got support for updating the phone s firmware without being plugged into a host PC via USB, something which a few Android devices and all WebOS devices have always supported. Consider, for comparison, the web browser market. It would be easiest if there was only one web browser but that browser would quickly stagnate and cause pain, the way Internet Explorer 6 did when it had almost the entire market. It wasn t until upstarts like Firefox and Opera and Chrome and more started showing off their unique ideas that the entire pack started improving including IE, with IE9 supporting most of the features that the competition introduced. Every smartphone shipping today has something to offer that other devices don t and every smartphone OS shipping today has something to offer that other OSes don t. iOS has the widest app catalog. Android is Open Source (FSVO Open ). WebOS has the best multitasking, and Just Type . Windows Phone 7 offers a drastic new user interface paradigm. Blackberry OS is built for messaging tasks, and has the best sysadmin control. Symbian is well, okay, sometimes there s a time to let go but the same applies for web browsers too. Smartphones are communication devices that people use every day of their lives, and every consumer has different needs we shouldn t try to push them into an ill-fitting category, just to satisfy ourselves that it s probably only possible for three mobile platforms to succeed in the mass-market . For some people, Blackberry OS really *is* the best choice, and no matter how much you pretend, an iPhone would enhance their lives. And as for the app question tough shit. Plenty of app developers only target iOS even though Android is overtaking in the market, and if they really want to reach as many people as possible, then use a cross-platform framework like PhoneGap or some of Xamarin s products. Single-ecosystem apps are a low-effort push to reach as many people possible with minimal investment, and the only way to satisfy that class of developer is to eliminate ALL competition in the marketplace iOS-only devs are this decade s IE6-only devs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I for one am sick of all the tales of doom and gloom that immediately surround any effort which isn t iOS or pure Android. We have a marketplace of ideas, which we should be celebrating, and not dumping on. I m eagerly awaiting delivery of my HP Pre 3, with all the unique possibilities it offers me which simply another Android device wouldn t have. And the big difference between WebOS and Nokia s Maemo/MeeGo efforts, for those who are still doubtful, is HP haven t spent years trying to deliberately sabotage the platform. Give it time. If I m wrong, the worst-case scenario is being lumbered with an awesome phone.

Last night I wanted to buy an album on Amazon and I couldn't do the checkout as the site required me to install the Amazon MP3 Downloader to make the purchase and download of the album. The downloader is not needed for a single song though, but buying each song separately would be more expensive and more work. The good news is that it automatically offered me packages for different Linux distros: Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and OpenSUSE instead of telling me off for using Linux and leaving me behind with a Windows only download. But here comes the catch, all offered packages are only for the Intel 32-bit architecture. Now this is a showstopper for me, as I am running an AMD64 Debian which is a 64-bit architecture. I first tried to download and run the 32-bit debian package nonetheless as there was some hope with the ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk package. But this was not working as the application needs gtkmm libraries like libglademm and bailed when I tried to run it. So I filed a wishlist bug report against ia32-libs-gtk for inclusion of gtkmm and possibly other needed libraries to run the Amazon MP3 downloader on AMD64. So I bought the album using MusicLoad instead which simply puts all songs in a single archive on-the-fly and let me download that archive. When I tweeted my frustration on Twitter I was hinted by Jo Shields and also by Gabriel Burt that there would have been a much simpler solution to this issue by using Banshee which includes an Amazon MP3 Store plugin: This plugin allows you to log into your Amazon account browse their store like the regular Amazon store, plays the song samples directly, purchase songs, downloads the songs and imports them into Banshee's database so you can play them right away. And as if this wasn't good enough yet, with the the purchase of MP3 songs on Amazon using Banshee automatically makes a donation to the GNOME foundation. As I am the only one who forgot or wasn't aware of this awesome solution this deserved some blogging. Update: some people pointed out that clamz is also available to make MP3 purchases on Amazon.

Hear me ramble about Mono on This Week In Debian for a half-hour! Go on, hear me! [MP3][Ogg]

If you ve ever gotten tired of waiting for a new Mono release to appear, and taken matters into your own hands by compiling your own copy of Mono, you ve likely faced the problem of missing libraries. That s weird, it says it can t find gtk-sharp, but I have that package! This happens because every version of Mono on your system has what s called a Global Assembly Cache a location where all system-wide assemblies lives. So when you run an app like Tomboy, it loads its libraries such as GTK# from the GAC belonging to the Mono runtime being used. Ordinarily, this is in /usr/lib/mono/gac on a Debian/Ubuntu system. When you have your parallel Mono, it doesn t share a GAC as a result, libraries in your main distro GAC are not available in your DIY GAC, as they were never registered in there. Typically, the advice is to either start compiling every lib you need into a non-standard place too however, here s a better idea. Why not make Apt take care of not only your system s GAC but additional GACs too? We actually have structures in place to handle this, so it s not as hard as you think (merely relatively unknown). This guide does NOT take startup scripts into account it s your problem to ensure you re using the correct mono command to run your copy of MonoDevelop or Tomboy or whatever. You should probably learn about update-alternatives and $PATH for this. Oh, and this guide will BREAK HORRIBLY if you try to uninstall system mono completely. Don t try it. Setup step 1: preparation Don t install parallel Mono into /usr/local. I don t care what happens to you if you do. Use some random folder in /opt, usually a per-build prefix like /opt/mono-2.10 Setup step 2: duplicating existing magic Open a terminal, and copy /usr/share/cli-common/runtimes.d/mono to a new filename, e.g. /usr/share/cli-common/runtimes.d/mono-2.10 Setup step 3: tweak duplicate magic Open your copied file in an editor, and change the name value on line 27ish (e.g. from Mono\n to Mono (parallel 2.10 install)\n ). Then change the two places in the file, on lines 64ish and 120ish, from /usr/bin/gacutil to /opt/mono-2.8.2/bin/gacutil or equivalent. Setup step 4: apply magic to existing packages Run /usr/share/cli-common/gac-install mono-2.10 (or whatever filename you picked for your runtimes.d entry) as root. This will instantiate your parallel GAC(s). From now on, every GAC library you install or uninstall will happen to every single runtime in runtimes.d. To go back to how things were before, with only a single Mono runtime: Uninstall step 1: empty out parallel GAC Run /usr/share/cli-common/gac-remove mono-2.10 (or whatever filename you picked for your runtimes.d entry) as root. This will remove all packaged entried from your parallel GAC(s). Uninstall step 2: remove magic Delete your file from runtimes.d

[ If you haven't heard of this debate yet, you probably want to read Vincent Untz's and Mark Shuttleworth's blog posts. ] Last year, I gave a talk at FOSDEM about Debian and Ubuntu (slides of a slightly updated version). One of my points was that Debian has better values, being a volunteer-driven project where decisions are taken in the open. In contrast, Ubuntu is a project managed and controlled by Canonical, and recent history has shown that Canonical had no problem imposing some decisions to the developers community: first with the inclusion of UbuntuOne, then the switch from Google to Yahoo! to Google as the default search engine, both to increase revenue streams. So one should not be surprised by the Banshee story. I find Mark s justification quite difficult to buy, and similar to Apple s model where 30% of the revenues from the App Store go to Apple, and 70% to the seller of the application. For those wondering how much work was done by Canonical directly on the Banshee package: the banshee package in Ubuntu natty is based on the package currently in Debian experimental. The package is mainly maintained in Debian by an Ubuntu developer not paid by Canonical AFAIK, Chow Loong Jin. There are some differences between the Debian package and the Ubuntu package, which are fairly limited (full diff here) and mainly about enabling UbuntuOne and disabling the other music stores. That patch itself apparently was provided by Jo Shields, who doesn t seem to be a canonical employee. (Feel free to correct me) I think that one of the conclusions to draw from this story is that we now have several proofs that Ubuntu isn t a volunteer-driven project, and that volunteer contributors should really decide whether they are OK with working for free for Canonical, or if their free time would be better spent on other projects where they actually have a chance to influence decisions. From the Debian POV, I m still convinced that we should take the feedback that we receive from Ubuntu in consideration to improve our Debian packages (by looking at patches made by Ubuntu, or at bugs reported in Launchpad). But my motivation for contributing to Ubuntu directly has just diminished a bit more (not that it was very high before).

Not for the first time, I ve seen the suggestion in the echo chamber that Mono packages should be moved from Debian into the non-free repository, which is not formally part of Debian. The reason, as it so often is, is patents specifically this time, the searing risk posed to Debian and its users that Mono s packaging does not (and technically could not without forking from upstream) provide base class libraries which implement only the content of ECMA-335 4th Edition. As I understand it, this implies three things about the suggestion/demand: firstly, that the individual in question believes that Mono end users are at risk from patent litigation from Microsoft Corp because Mono s implementation of Microsoft.NET beyond the content of ECMA 334/335 infringes on Microsoft patents; secondly, that the Microsoft Community Promise which promises not to assert legal claims over third party implementations of ECMA-335 4th Edition (and ECMA-334 4th Edition which defines the C# language) would render a pure ECMA-only runtime safe if it existed (which it does not); thirdly that without the protection offered by the Microsoft Community Promise, the source code licenses of Mono are irrelevant the patent risk renders the software non-Free. It appears, unfortunately, that the community of Free Software Advocates don t actually understand what Free Software actually IS. That explains an awful lot, but should surprise nobody. So here s a lesson on what, exactly, is being advocated for. The Free Software Foundation defines four Software Freedoms these are the minimum criteria required for something to be considered Free Software by the FSF:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Other groups have their own variants on these, but those are really just clarifications on the FSF definition - for example, the Debian Free Software Guidelines mostly line up, but have some additional clauses such as clause 4 which allows software to be considered Free if source code may be redistributed without modifications, as long as patches may be shipped alongside. These four freedoms are offered to you by the software s copyright holders only, and apply regardless of their choice of license any Free license, from a lengthy legal tome like the MPL to the completely-Free WTFPL, will offer you these four basic freedoms as a minimum, and any additional clauses in their licenses cannot seek to restrict these freedoms. These four freedoms represent the beginning, and end, of whether a piece of software is Free or not. Software does not need to be developed in the open, in a community-responsive way, in order to qualify as Free projects such as Google s Android, which are developed under a throw a final release over the wall, bugs and all, and expect people to thank you for it model, are still free, even if contribution is difficult. Actually, on a related note, software does not need to solicit upstream contribution of any kind in order to qualify as Free as long as you personally can redistribute the code with changes, then that s enough. Software does not need to serve a fully or even partially legal purpose in order to qualify as Free the favoured tool for causing distributed denial of service attacks, Low Orbit Ion Cannon, is Free Software, even though realistically it serves no legal purpose. DeCSS, the code initially used to allow DVD media to play on Linux (by breaking the CSS encryption mechanism) is Free Software. Software does not need to be useful or tasteful in order to qualify as Free the Last Measure Operating System, a minimalist OS primarily designed to loudly display the famous shock site images from goatse and related, is Free Software. Even in somewhat less clear-cut cases of taste, your personal opinion of software has no bearing on whether it is Free Software, as long as the four freedoms are guaranteed by the author(s). Software does not need to have only Free dependencies to qualify as Free Software it is entirely permissible to write software which relies upon a non-Free framework or library, and release your code under a Free license. It is the downstream recipient s problem to provide the dependencies, including their choice to craft a Free replacement for any non-Free code you make use of. Debian has a special repository called contrib, where Free software which only works with non-Free data, lives for example, Free game engines which require the insertion of proprietary game data in order to operate. You could write Free addons for expensive proprietary software such as Matlab, and as long as your code is Free, your responsibilities are met. Software does not need to avoid patents software, algorithmic, or otherwise in order to qualify as Free. The Freetype font library was still entirely Free Software when Apple were slinging threats around regarding font hinting data. FFmpeg, the Swiss Army knife of media codec libraries, is Free Software regardless of the number of codec patents it breaks. Software does not need any third party approval to be Free Software the rights of Free Software can only be offered by the copyright holders, and the opinion of third parties is an irrelevance as to whether software is Free. The GPL d clone of Blizzard Entertainment s Battle.net servers, bnetd, is Free Software, regardless of legal takedown notices. Third parties cannot influence whether or not a piece of software is Free. They can influence tangentially related topics, such as whether the software can be legally used, but that s the limit. And even within a given piece of software, where copyright is shared by contributors, the author of one component has no say on other components. And you can t make code which is already released as Free, suddenly un-Free you can, if you hold all the copyrights, close up future versions, but your existing code remains Free forever. Reasonably, you can opt to avoid using a piece of software because you have requirements beyond it merely being Free Software Cdrtools has been avoided in Debian for a long time due to the upstream author s legal threats and rambling but that is a side issue as to the question of whether or not the software is Free. Patents are simply not involved in the question of whether or not something is Free Software, except for one narrow case: where Free Software is released by somebody who also holds related patents, and uses a license such as Ms-PL or Apache 2.0 or GPLv3 which requires them to also release those patents to those using/distributing the software. Outside that narrow situation, patents do not relate to the question of whether something is Free Software even if a company releases some source code under a license like BSD then demands patent fees from end users. So, on to the original topic of Mono. Every piece of Mono s source code is released by its authors under a license which guarantees the FSF s Four Freedoms. Whether or not you find Mono useful or tasteful does not affect that Free status. Whether or not Mono infringes upon any laws or patents does not affect that Free status. That Mono contains some libraries whose upstream author is Microsoft does not give Microsoft even the remotest claim to a single line of code outside the code they wrote and even then, it wouldn t be an issue, since the licenses they use are Free. In fact, both the licenses used in the Microsoft portions of the source base make patent grants to all users, in addition to guaranteeing the FSF s Four Freedoms and any license contamination would decrease, not increase, any risk of legal attack from Microsoft. There s even plenty of Microsoft code available for re-use at a lower level than the currently re-used libraries: The Microsoft.NET Micro Framework (for use on embedded platforms direct to the metal) is under the Free Software Apache 2.0 license, and would provide access to some of Microsoft s runtime and class library code, complete with a patent grant, if it were desired. Please try to keep your thought processes straight. If you want to argue that you re all for Free Software, please remember that there s plenty of Free Software you might not approve of and don t claim to be a Free Software advocate then use bogus arguments to claim that Free Software is not Free. Free Software includes LMOS and LOIC and Mono, whether you like it or not.

I ve never quit a job before. Well, not a real job. Quitting PC World was more than easy, it was practically required for my soul not to leave my body. Quitting Waitrose was, well, it was a freaking supermarket job. And Southampton football stadium I just stopped turning up after one girl fainted in the kitchen from heat exhaustion. But a real, proper handing in of notice is something new in no small part because I ve been in the same place since my first job as a new graduate. Not that I m ungrateful, mind. Looking after big iron at the University of Oxford has been pretty awesome more blinky lights than you can shake a stick at but there comes a time when you need to think about your career, and move on to pastures new. I m fairly sure six and a bit years is WELL past that point. When I started looking at work, I had only a few mandatory criteria a sysadmin job, working with Free Software, without any significant decrease to my monthly income. Beyond that well, in this economy, who am I to argue? What I hadn t accounted for, however, was a job whose awesomeness can t be contained. A job with a dedicated Free Software company whose entire staff roster, top to bottom, is filled with the most talented, smart, and generally awesome people you could hope to work with. Such a job would be a fevered dream, the mere ramblings of a madman. Yet, somehow, for the second time running, I find myself in an enviable job, working exclusively on Free Software. Being able to show off root access to a box with 256 cores and a tibibyte of RAM is pretty cool. But you know what s even cooler? A job where I never need to worry about openSUSE 10.1 administration ever again. A job where several of my colleagues are fellow Debian Developers, with all the prestige and knowledge that comes with such a title. And somehow, by rolling proverbial twenties, I find myself in that position. I am very, VERY proud to say that from the start of January, I ll be joining Collabora Ltd as their new Systems Manager.

There are corners of the Internest where foolish people congregate, and invent stories. These foolish stories are then read as gospel by trusting people, and reposted, until the original made-up source is concealed from view. As an attempt to stem this flow of disinformation, here are some commonly held but incorrect beliefs about the Mono framework, and an explanation of the reality of the situation, as far as I understand it. The next Mono version is co-developed with Microsoft There is a grain of truth behind this one, but it s a gross mischaracterisation. Mono 2.8, when it ships, will bundle, for convenience, a number of Free Software libraries, which are released by Microsoft under a license considered Free Software by the Free Software Foundation, the Ms-PL. These are:

• System.Web.Mvc and System.Web.Mvc2: ASP.NET MVC, a library for writing ASP.NET web pages with a model-view-controller design, similar to Rails for Ruby. This is not news System.Web.Mvc has been bundled in Mono since Mono 2.4.2 (June 25th 2009). System.Web.Mvc2 has been bundled in Mono since Mono 2.6.7 (July 14th 2010).
• System.Numerics: Mono re-uses Microsoft s implementation of BigInteger.cs from the Dynamic Language Runtime (see below). This is indeed new to Mono 2.8, as it is part of .NET 4.0 (Mono 2.8 targets .NET 4.0 compatibility by default).
• System.Data.Services.Client: The OData SDK client library. This is indeed new to Mono 2.8.
• System.ComponentModel.Composition: The Managed Extensibility Framework, a library for writing and using plugins. This is similar in scope to the existing Mono.Addins project. This is indeed new to Mono 2.8, although it was added to Mono Trunk in 2009.
• System.Web.Extensions: Microsoft Ajax, a library for using Ajax inside ASP.NET projects. This is not news MicrosoftAjaxLibrary has been bundled in Mono since Mono 1.2.6 (11th December 2007).
• Microsoft.Scripting.Core and Microsoft.Dynamic: The Dynamic Language Runtime is a framework permitting implementation of dynamic languages (such as Python or Ruby) on top of the core .NET runtime. It is used for IronPython and IronRuby, amongst others. The DLR has very recently changed license from Ms-PL to Apache 2.0, but the version bundled in Mono is still under the older license. This is not news the DLR has been bundled in Mono since Mono 2.6 (14th December 2009).

So, to summarise, there are five Free Software libraries written by Microsoft under the Ms-PL included in Mono 2.8 but only two of those five are new, and none of them were co-developed in any meaningful sense. Mono development is dead There have been reports that Mono development has ended, on the basis that no commits have been made to Novell s Subversion server for a few weeks. However, these reports miss one minor detail Mono has moved to Github.com. There were 35 commits from 9 different people to the main mono.git repository (of dozens of repositories under the main Mono project) in the last 2 days, at time of writing far from dead. Mono lacks features found in Microsoft.NET Mono lacks libraries found in Microsoft.NET, such as the Windows Presentation Framework GUI toolkit. In terms of features, i.e. things implemented at a compiler or runtime level, Mono is typically more advanced. This is helped in no small part by Mono s Free Software development model, allowing experimentation and what if changes to the core runtime which a sluggish corporate behemoth like Microsoft cannot accommodate. To give three real-world examples, Mono allows embedding of its compiler as a service, and provides a REPL shell this is a planned feature for .NET 5.0, but has been available for years in Mono; Mono.Simd provides a number of data structures which will run on any version of Mono or Microsoft.NET, but will use optimized CPU extensions like SSE when run on a sufficiently new version of Mono, on an appropriate architecture as far as I m aware, there is nothing like this available or planned for Microsoft.NET. Mono is able to produce fully compiled, static executables which do not need to JIT anything at runtime this is used for iPhone compilation, for example, where JITters are not permitted. There is no comparable feature in Microsoft.NET. Clearly, Microsoft.NET can only be thought of as more featureful if one defines features in terms of does it have lots of libraries? in terms of functionality, Mono is ahead. Mono can sneak onto your system without your knowledge If you don t have the mono-runtime package installed, you can t run Mono apps. It is possible to install some Mono apps alongside the awful-yet-popular mononono equivs package, since the popular equivs script fails to place Conflicts on the correct packages (F-Spot will be blocked, Tomboy will not). No package in Debian or Ubuntu embeds its own copy of the Mono runtime, and we have no plans to make any changes to packaging which would allow execution of any C# application without mono-runtime installed. If one is using a different OS, then things may be different e.g. The Sims 3 for Mac & PC uses embedded Mono, which you wouldn t know about without looking. Canonical are pursuing a pro-Mono agenda, and are responsible for it being pushed in Debian Mono development has been happening in Debian for longer than Canonical has existed the first upload was made in April 2002. Ubuntu is made primarily from software already available in Debian deemed of sufficient quality, and when F-Spot and Tomboy became parts of the default Ubuntu desktop system in 2006, both pieces of software were already available in Debian and deemed of sufficient quality. Nobody working on Mono in Debian is paid by Canonical actually, that s not entirely true, three packages related to accessibility are officially maintained by someone who was hired by Canonical after doing the initial packaging work when he worked for Novell. But the Mono runtime itself, Canonical have no influence over its direction in Debian. As for a pro-Mono agenda , they ve always taken an extremely pragmatic approach to language choice, never showing any real preference for one language or another when it comes to app selection. They don t exhibit any overt anti-Mono policies, which is not the same thing. The names of people contributing to Mono in Debian are not secret check the pkg-mono team page on Alioth. The System.Windows.Forms namespace is protected by Microsoft patents The truth is, nobody knows for sure if SWF, or any other part of Mono, or any other framework such as Vala or Python, is covered by Microsoft patents. The way the US patent system is contrived, it is actively dangerous to check whether something contains any patents when you write it, as you are liable for triple damages should it later emerge that there WAS a patent, even if your searching missed the fact. You cannot patent an API or namespace only a specific implementation of a software concept, in those countries where software patents are permitted. There has never been any evidence shown that Mono s implementation of SWF, or indeed any part of Mono, infringes any Microsoft-held patents, because if that were the case, then the code would be rewritten to avoid the issue much like the approach taken by Linux kernel developers when a patent becomes apparent. The belief within the Mono community is that the core parts of Mono as defined in ECMA334/335 are safe (they are covered by the Microsoft Community Promise patent grant); any of the Ms-PL libraries mentioned above is definitely safe (Ms-PL includes an explicit patent grant); and the rest of the package is likely safe too (on the basis that it is a named component of the Open Innovation Network s list of protected software and on the basis that there s unlikely to be anything patentable in one of many implementations of basic ideas like database connectors). Nobody knows for sure, because that s how the system works. But, again, nobody knows for sure that Microsoft patents don t apply to other frameworks such as Python there is simply a belief and an assumption that they do not. MonoDevelop contributors removed GPL code from MonoDevelop, in an attack on the GPL This is somewhat disingenuous, given MonoDevelop is LGPL. The MonoDevelop team excised the remaining GPL code (and there wasn t much of it) in order to grant greater Freedom to developers. Previously, the entire MonoDevelop IDE was a GPL combination, meaning any add-ins for the IDE also needed to be GPL, regardless of developer choice. Now, any developer can write an add-in for MonoDevelop, using the license of their choice, whether another Free license like the Mozilla Public License, or a proprietary closed-source add-in. They are still welcome to produce GPL add-ins, if they want to, as well. Mono won t run random Microsoft.NET apps anyway, so isn t really cross-platform Actually, this one is often true. When developers write apps for Windows primarily, they rarely take the time to think is this the correct way to do it? and will often plough on with an assumption about the Windows way of doing things. It might be simple things like filesystem assumptions (assuming a case-insensitive filesystem, or assuming a backslash is used to separate directories, not a forward slash). It might be more involved, such as using P/Invokes into Windows-specific C libraries, when a more cross-platform alternative is possible. So, often, random applications for Microsoft.NET won t run on Mono. The reverse is also true F-Spot or GNOME Do are fairly heavily tied to Linux (or to UNIX-like OSes with X11, at any rate), through the libraries they invoke being fairly platform-specific. You can write platform-specific Java, with one quick piece of JNI, too. It should be noted, however, that Mono makes the chance of .NET applications being ported to Linux (and/or Mac) much more likely, since even in the worst case scenario, a company only needs to fix a portion of their source to make it cross-platform. The Mono team have a tool called MoMA, which will scan an application and its libraries, and give you detailed reports on the app s portability. This info is used at both ends by app vendors who want to become more portable, and by the Mono team who want to fill in the most frequently encountered blanks. And, it should be stressed, writing cross-platform apps is entirely possible if one desires it e.g. the IRC client Smuxi is pure cross-platform C#, and the executables compiled on Mono on Linux will run fine on Microsoft.NET on Windows. Portability in this direction is important too consider how many people have been introduced to Free Software thanks to availability of Free apps on Windows like OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Pidgin or GIMP. You can download Tomboy for Windows, and work is ongoing on fixing Banshee portability issues (which are mostly caused by gStreamer). Mono on Android is a terrible idea which will be super slow There are two efforts to enable developers to write Android applications with Mono a paid proprietary product from Novell called MonoDroid, and an untitled porting effort by big-name Android hacker Koushik Dutta. I have no insight into MonoDroid since it hasn t been released yet, but Koush did some benchmarks of his work which exhibited some remarkable figures compared to Dalvik (and even compared to Sun Java for ARM). Those numbers haven t been updated to reflect the Froyo Dalvik JITter, but Mono on Android is still very exciting from a performance perspective. Mono isn t really Free Software The source code is all available under Free Software licenses. So, um, yes it is. We don t need Mono because we have $LANG By the same logic, we don t need $LANG because we have Mono. By all means, use the language of your choice other developers will use the language of their choice too. If you want to use Vala or Python or Java, then by all means, go ahead. It doesn t mean there s no room for more languages, better suited to other usage patterns. Haskell is great for some types of development, so is Fortran, and so is C#. You might not need Mono because of $LANG, but there are others in the world with different needs. Mono apps are all slow, and crash your computer, and stuff No userland app can crash your Linux system, unless there s a bug in the kernel, or you have some severe problems with your hardware. If you ve ever observed a crash as a result of running a Mono app, then it s really coincidence that Mono is tickling whichever part of your system is busted. As for slow startup time may well be slower than for apps written in C or Vala. There s a delay due to the JITter needing to compile all the libraries used by the application (we may AOT the most common libraries in a future Mono package version, at upstream s recommendation). Once an app is running, it should be fast compared to a Python app, and memory-light compared to a Java app. The new garbage collector in Mono 2.8 should also offer significant improvements to performance, especially under heavy workloads. Ubuntu s default GTK+ themes require Mono This is my favourite recent nonsense to emerge from the Internest. There are reports mostly restricted to IRC and blog comments, that (paraphrasing here) removing Mono removes the Ubuntu themes . Here s the reality: in Ubuntu 10.04, a new visual style was implemented throughout the distro. As part of this, small icons (e.g. notification area icons) were set to be black-and-white by default, and colourised when attention is needed (e.g. the power-off icon turns red when a reboot is needed, the messaging indicator turns green when there s a new message). All of these new monochrome icons are in a package named ubuntu-mono . Removing the ubuntu-mono icon package will also remove the new Ubuntu GTK+ themes, in the light-themes package. So there s your explanation: the themes have a dependence on some monochrome icons, not on the Mono framework.

I ve just made a new release of my GRUB2 gfxmenu themes. This time, there s an Ubuntu Lucid theme. It looks like this: Download it from here as always.

I ve finished uploading the latest version of the cross-platform MonoDevelop IDE to Debian Experimental. MonoDevelop is a full-blown IDE for working on software written in C#, Visual Basic.NET, Python, Vala, Java (via IKVM.NET), C, C++, and Boo. It also integrates support for debugging (both of C-based apps via GDB, and Mono-based apps via MDB or the new Soft Debugger), GUI design of C# apps, version control via Subversion, database querying, unit testing, and more. Oh, and for good luck, I ve also uploaded it to badgerports.org (which should now display okay on smaller displays), for use with Ubuntu 10.04, where support for authoring with Moonlight is included. It ll be in the main Ubuntu 10.10 repository at some point in the future, also with Moonlight support. Enjoy.

In my last post, about GRUB2 theming, there were a few people who were unhappy at the perceived difficulty of creating GRUB2 themes, largely based on the lack of documentation. And to be honest, those people are right if the documentation were complete & correct when I started, then I wouldn t have ended up bumping into all the bugs I did. So, to help on that front and to help kick-start GRUB2 theming in general, I m announcing Larval. More GRUB2 themes means more awesome-looking systems in the wild. Hopefully the GRUB2 upstream will embrace it as a project to help raise the profile and potential of GRUB2. It didn t take me long to realise the most obvious way to develop such an editor: GRUB2 s canvas-based layout system has an awful lot in common with XAML, so the obvious choice was to develop using Silverlight (or, more specifically, Gtk.Moonlight). Larval s internal theme format is XAML files, which are then exported to (and imported from) GRUB2 s simple text based files. The biggest piece of work, to be honest, is the Managed implementation of a PF2 font reader/writer, so you can design a theme using the regular TrueType fonts of your choice, then have them automatically ported to PF2 format as required. I look forward to plenty of community input on Larval, once it reaches a point where I m sufficiently pleased with my (Ms-PL licensed) code to share it with the world. Until then, you ll have to make do with the above screenshot!

I don t know how long add-apt-repository has been around, but I ve found it very useful for installing some of the bleeding edge stuff I want to test:

$ for ppa in do-core team-xbmc nvidia-vdpau chromium-daily directhex/monoxide
do
  sudo add-apt-repository ppa:$ppa
done
$ apt-get update
$ apt-get install chromium-browser nvidia-glx-195 gnome-do xbmc monodevelop

Is there anything like this for debian proper, I wonder?

There s been a fair deal of talk on the intertubes lately about prettifying the boot process. The first I saw was a post from Lasse Havelund regarding a proposal for Ubuntu Lucid, and the second was regarding a forked version of GRUB2 called BURG, which adds some theming abilities. A tiny bit of research revealed that despite the existence of BURG, the regular upstream GRUB2 project already has graphical theme support, courtesy of a Google Summer of Code project by Colin Bennett (albeit with a few less features at time of writing). Since Lasse had gone to the hard work of actual design, I decided to try my hand at chopping his design up into a usable GRUB2 theme, and the result can be seen here. I ended up speaking with the upstream GRUB2 team (which has certainly lead to a strange alliance in one case) about Colin s GSOC themes, and as it turns out, the main reason there s no theme supplied with GRUB2 is that Colin s themes use non-Free elements (proprietary fonts like Helvetica are used heavily). Since I had learnt the theme format to a basic degree in doing my Ubuntu theme, I proposed making a genuinely Free theme starting with a Debian theme, and moving on to a generic GRUB2 theme afterwards. As I went along, I found a handful of bugs and feature oddities, which have almost all been fixed with incredible turnaround by Vladimir Serbinenko, the current maintainer of the gfxmenu code (there remain some questions regarding RTL support in themes, and how to gracefully deal with different aspect ratios) and I want to extend my thanks to him for his help. However, at this point in time, I m pleased to announce a theme I d consider ready for public consumption. It s obviously not perfect, and it uses the old visual style from Debian Lenny, but it s a fully Free starting point, which hopefully can be deconstructed by others seeking to make their own themes. It ought to scale fully to any 4:3 resolution. And it may explode and eat your disk on any version of GRUB2 Experimental other than r1499. Generally, the README is a good starting point. Oh yes, an URL. Try http://retro.apebox.org/grubthemes/ I ve been speaking with some folks on deviantART regarding using their Debian-themed wallpaper in future releases of my themes package, but for now, this should be enough for gfxmenu to get a little more exposure and a little more testing. And, hopefully, shift artist focus back from the theme-incompatible BURG fork to the real GRUB2 project.

I will be at FOSDEM in February next year. It should hopefully be awesome. Anyone who packages Mono on any distro should definitely come, or does any Mono-related stuff in general, since not only will I be there, but the fabulous Mirco Bauer too and perhaps other wonderful people. Definitely a fine use of your moneycash.

I m making a few changes to my online interactions.

• Chicken Little Remix will no longer be updated. There will be no 10.04 from me.
• I will no longer be visiting certain websites, under any circumstances, courtesy of 127.0.0.1 entries in /etc/hosts. This includes sites such as Ubuntu Forums, some blogs, and some news sites.
• I will be blocking some people from Twitter, in order to avoid their @mentions from appearing to me.
• I may (this is undecided) opt to change my anything-goes policy regarding comments on my blog. Redacted comments will have their content deleted, to make it clear that a comment is redacted, not held in moderation

Some things, however, will NOT be changing.

• I will continue my efforts in Debian. In fact, these efforts will be redoubled.
• I will continue my efforts in Ubuntu. In fact, these efforts will be redoubled.
• I will maintain my existing IRC, Twitter, email & IM presence.
• I will, when the opportunity arises, combine sweet and savoury foods.

Thank you for your time.

Bok bok booooook bok bok mono bok bok bkaawk bok bok bok Chicken Little Remix 9.10 Karmic Kraienk ppe Braaaaaaaak bok boooooook bok bok bkaaawk bok bok bok bok bok:

• Bok bok LiveCD
• Wallpaper bkawk bok bok
• Cluck cluck Gnote
• Booooooook bok Solang bok bok bok

Bok bok booooook Mininova: 4577800beda226d815f98bc8d79521cd clr-9.10-desktop-amd64.iso
f97179e5b13f3aceb6c9d98d2c7e6ef5 clr-9.10-desktop-i386.iso Bkaaawk bok bok bok boooooook bok braaawk bok bok booooook bok bok bok 10.04? Bok bok boook charity, bok bok videogames, braaaawk money. Bok bok.

For those who don t follow my exciting life on the IRCosphere or Tweetoscape, I m now officially a Debian Developer, complete with snazzy email address. What this means in real terms is that the pkg-cli-apps, pkg-cli-libs and pkg-mono teams now have a second person with upload rights, alongside the talented but occasionally overworked Mirco Bauer. Which should lower the amount of time that contributor packages and patches spend waiting to be sponsored. As the cool kids say: woo!

For those who aren t clinically dead, you may have heard of the BBC . The BBC are the state-ish-funded TV network in the UK, and the country s biggest broadcaster, alongside three other major terrestrial broadcasters who make their content widely available without payment ITV, Channel 4, and Five. These broadcasters also make some or all of their programming available for streaming over the Internets usually their home-grown programming only, not licensed stuff from America. Now, once upon a time, the online functionality was mostly offered via a proprietary P2P-and-DRM-based system called Kontiki. Kontiki was unpopular for various reasons for example, it was Windows-only, and banned by several Internet providers due to the use of P2P (e.g. I know such technology is still banned on the University of Oxford network). As a result, this lead to the introduction and eventual replacement of browser-based streaming solutions, starting with the changes made to BBC s iPlayer. iPlayer is nowadays a combination of an Adobe Flash service for web surfers, an unencrypted MP4 streaming service for users of mobile devices such as iPhones, and as of a couple of weeks ago, has streaming support built directly into the PlayStation 3 s user interface too. Oh, and on the PC, it supports DRM-based downloading courtesy of the Adobe Air platform, on Windows, Mac, and Air-capable (x86) Linux. Channel 4 s service 4od, and Five s Demand Five, are also based on Adobe Flash, and streaming-only. They re basic and functional. The final interesting one here is ITV s ITV Player. ITV Player was, until about a week ago, the only non-Flash service, instead making use of Microsoft Silverlight. They have now changed to be Flash-based, like their peers, meaning the entire market mandates use of the Adobe Flash plugin or, at a push, command-line utilities or browser plugins which grab the raw video files from the broadcasters servers, in violation of their licenses. Why is this interesting? Well, when ITV Player used Silverlight, we could watch TV using Free Software: Novell Moonlight 2.0 Beta 1.1 and above worked fine with it, on i386 and AMD64 (and other architectures with a recompile). Now that it s using Flash rather than Silverlight, where do we stand for watching streaming TV legitimately with Free Software? Let s take a peek! Firstly, some preamble. I m running Ubuntu Jaunty, and I hand-compiled a SVN (I think SVN? Maybe Bzr) snapshot of Gnash revision 11485 to ensure I had an up-to-date view of proceedings. It definitely seems to be working, as I m introduced to the world of Flash advertising via Gnash, and Youtube.com also works, more or less. And I m not discussing Adobe s Flash plugin here, for various reasons:

• It s proprietary. Boo.
• It s i386-only in several instances a beta of an AMD64 plugin exists, but your browser will crash on BBC iPlayer sites if you have the iPlayer Adobe Air app installed, as Air is i386-only. And the packages in Ubuntu install the i386 plugin alongside the abominable and crashy nsPluginWrapper.
• Did I mention it was proprietary? If the only way to surf the web on a Free OS is with proprietary software, then we re not doing very well.

So, Gnash it is. Firstly, it s a PITA to compile, as upstream seem to have misunderstood how AutoFoo works i.e. it detects that you don t have headers installed for certain features, and tells you so, yet still enables those features at configure-time (and obviously fails when building). Hey guys, if I don t have qapplication.h, take the hint and disable KDE support for me like every other bloody app does. With that out of the way, let s get to it! BBC iPlayer Well, what does the landing look like? Looks fine to me! Let s try playing a show! Oh. Um Never mind, then. Seems iPlayer s JavaScript to detect Flash presence doesn t pick up on Gnash, and it bails out. Score so far: 0/1 Demand Five Another former Kontiki partner, how do these guys fare? Hey, that looks pretty good to me! Perhaps we re onto a winner this time? Poot. Gnash is definitely being invoked see the context menu there but it sure isn t doing anything useful. Score: 0/2 Channel 4 4od How do those hip cats at Channel 4 fare? Hm Gotta confess, not feeling too hopeful about this one Oh, well, even worse than iPlayer. What you folks might not recognise is the missing Play buttons which are supposed to be to the right of the program descriptions in that list of episodes. Presumably more Javascript/Flash interop failure. 0/3 ITV Player Last, but not least, how does the newest entrant into Microsoft-free streaming fare? Now, now, in fairness, it s always been this bad, even when they used Silverlight weirdos that they are, ITV have always used Flash for their navigation, even when they used Silverlight for playback. The Flash-based navigation you (don t) see here is barely any better even with the proprietary Flash plugin. What the proprietary plugin does NOT do, however, is consume the 750 or so meg of RAM that Gnash did when sat idle on this screen. I mean, that s not a problem, that s why I have 6 gig in here, but still, not wise on Wifey s netbook. Oh. Well then. 0/4 it is. So? What annoys me here isn t so much that nothing works. I m used to there being temporary gaps in Free Software functionality, that s pretty normal. But I m greatly vexed that one of these four used to work on a Free platform, and now it doesn t and that places like UbuntuForums are filled with people celebrating that fact. Celebrating that ITV have stopped using the evil nasty Microsoft system which happened to have a functional Free replacement and that they ve now moved to a non-Microsoft system which mandates a proprietary plugin. It s not the first time either Major League Baseball in the USA used to use Silverlight for their HD streaming, and now they use a combination of Flash and a proprietary Windows-only extension to Flash to make it load WMV files this is considered a victory. It really isn t. We should NEVER be forced to use Proprietary software in order to surf the web yet now we ve gone from having access to 25% of the UK s streaming TV services via Free Software to 0% of them, and people are happy about it. So, I want you to think long and hard about this question, one which seems to get the oddball answer far too often: What is more important promoting Free Software, or demoting Microsoft Corp?

It’s incredible how one troll can split a channel up. It’s incredible how the sexist shit can be spread all over the place. It’s incredible, not wait, not incredible, it’s sad, sadder and sadder, to see what Debian has become. The Debian social life has become a center for dramas of all kinds, since sexist traumas, transgenders issues, people with too much free time, real good technical people leaving, freaking big farts in Debian thinking on leaving the project, elitist dolls clubs, small wannabes who think they can treat other people unrespectful. Debian itself is now its own slow killer. There has always been old people, new people, people leaving and people entering, but when you see other projects just as good as we were, some of us remain because of the social side of Debian. But is it really worthwhile? Perhaps not anymore. And because of the non-sense shit from the debian-women mailing list thread, here are a few random greps on my old logs:

Jun 11 07:19:29 <directhex work> timgoh0, for the same reason a woman in skimpy lingerie is sexier than a women in the nude, lesbians are sexier to watch than a threesome. it’s the *potential* being presented. the thinly veiled chance for the imagination to run wild Sep 13 00:23:27 <tech> women are mostly useless Sep 12 23:28:10 <tech> nvz: just stay away from women, it’s easier Mar 04 20:12:32 <nvz> women like to be refluffled Jan 13 12:50:07 <toresbe> rcox: Some idiot got out on the debian-women mailing list and said #debian-offtopic was “sexist”.

Of course we are sexists, just like we are men and women unfriendly, we laugh about nationalities, we like fluffling, make fun of others and we like to be nipple smited. Love it or get the fuck out of there. We’re an unofficial community now. Who would want to be official after all?