When did WINE start requiring MONO?
I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on my machines.
Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE!
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury < max@mtew.isa-geek.net> wrote:
When did WINE start requiring MONO?
I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on my machines.
Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE!
First off, what is your beef with Mono? It's a decent technology that makes .NET available on non-Windows platforms.
Secondly, the wine-mono addon is optional, I believe. You do not have to install it.
On 05/31/2012 11:05 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max@mtew.isa-geek.net mailto:max@mtew.isa-geek.net> wrote:
When did WINE start requiring MONO? I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on my
machines.
Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE!First off, what is your beef with Mono? It's a decent technology that makes .NET available on non-Windows platforms.
Secondly, the wine-mono addon is optional, I believe. You do not have to install it.
My beef (as you call it, it is more an outright RAGE in fact) is PATENTS. Mono uses Microsoft's own technology that are covered by their STINKING patents, making any system that has them installed vulnerable to all kinds of legal hassles if Microsoft decides to get nastier than they already are.
And the installation request when running 'make test' does NOT mention that you have the option of NOT installing the beast! So it does NOT look like it is OPTIONAL.
If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' script.
The ONLY way I could trust MONO is if it had a GPL 3+ or LGPL 3+ license that had been court tested and was therefore immune to Microsoft's legal shenanigans. I do NOT believe any of the other FOSS and definitely the plain OSS licenses provide the necessary protection.
And, yes, I am more than a little crazed on this subject.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury < max@mtew.isa-geek.net> wrote:
On 05/31/2012 11:05 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max@mtew.isa-geek.net mailto:max@mtew.isa-geek.net**> wrote:
When did WINE start requiring MONO? I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on mymachines.
Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE!First off, what is your beef with Mono? It's a decent technology that makes .NET available on non-Windows platforms.
Secondly, the wine-mono addon is optional, I believe. You do not have to install it.
My beef (as you call it, it is more an outright RAGE in fact) is PATENTS. Mono uses Microsoft's own technology that are covered by their STINKING patents, making any system that has them installed vulnerable to all kinds of legal hassles if Microsoft decides to get nastier than they already are.
And the installation request when running 'make test' does NOT mention that you have the option of NOT installing the beast! So it does NOT look like it is OPTIONAL.
If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' script.
The ONLY way I could trust MONO is if it had a GPL 3+ or LGPL 3+ license that had been court tested and was therefore immune to Microsoft's legal shenanigans. I do NOT believe any of the other FOSS and definitely the plain OSS licenses provide the necessary protection.
And, yes, I am more than a little crazed on this subject.
You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java side of things than with Mono.
On 06/01/2012 12:40 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java side of things than with Mono.
No, I do NOT 'realize' Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement ....
I have heard that such a thing exists, but with the recent debacle by Oracle and tSCOg's treatment of 'irrevocable agreement"s, I do NOT trust them to not find a way to get around such a pronouncement. In fact I expect that they could simply ignore any such promise if they found it convenient to do so and that they will do so eventually. Further, there are enough weasel words in that pronouncement that I think they plan to get nasty anyway.
I realize ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY, but I prefer to stay clear of tar pits like MONO when I can.
(There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will become unnecessary.)
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max@mtew.isa-geek.net
wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:40 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java side of things than with Mono.
No, I do NOT 'realize' Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement ....
I have heard that such a thing exists, but with the recent debacle by Oracle and tSCOg's treatment of 'irrevocable agreement"s, I do NOT trust them to not find a way to get around such a pronouncement. In fact I expect that they could simply ignore any such promise if they found it convenient to do so and that they will do so eventually. Further, there are enough weasel words in that pronouncement that I think they plan to get nasty anyway.
I realize ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY, but I prefer to stay clear of tar pits like MONO when I can.
(There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will become unnecessary.)
Oracle could sue because its legal agreement for patents requires that the implementation is derived from Oracle's completely and must be under GPL. Other independent implementations are not protected. Microsoft's protects all implementations that comply with published standards.
On 06/01/2012 09:58 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max@mtew.isa-geek.net mailto:max@mtew.isa-geek.net> wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:40 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java side of things than with Mono.
No, I do NOT 'realize' Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement ....
I have heard that such a thing exists, but with the recent debacle by Oracle and tSCOg's treatment of 'irrevocable agreement"s, I do NOT trust them to not find a way to get around such a pronouncement. In fact I expect that they could simply ignore any such promise if they found it convenient to do so and that they will do so eventually. Further, there are enough weasel words in that pronouncement that I think they plan to get nasty anyway.
I realize ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY, but I prefer to stay clear of tar pits like MONO when I can.
(There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will become unnecessary.)
Oracle could sue because its legal agreement for patents requires that the implementation is derived from Oracle's completely and must be under GPL. Other independent implementations are not protected. Microsoft's protects all implementations that comply with published standards.
You have that wrong. Google made no such agreements. Oracle sued anyway on the basis of copy right and patent infringement. They lost on BOTH counts, but it still cost Google tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and it still has a ways to run. I can't afford that. I suspect that anyone who is not operating on Google's scale can.
Worse, Sun LIKED it that Google was trying for compatibility. Oracle bought Sun and the situation changed dramatically. Microsoft does NOT like the competition and has pulled stunts like their end-run to MosAid to get around binding promises. Relying on ANY legal pronouncement by Microsoft is even worse than relying on their technical pronouncements.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury max@mtew.isa-geek.net wrote:
Microsoft does NOT like the competition and has pulled stunts like their end-run to MosAid to get around binding promises.
Actually, I went to the MonoSpace conference last year, and guess where it was hosted: the MICROSOFT Nerd Center in Boston. There were also Microsoft employees in attendance, including the lead developer of the F# compiler, which by the way is a Microsoft technology that is free software and that actively tries to maintain compatibility with Mono.
So, if Microsoft is unhappy about Mono as competition, they have a strange way of showing it.
Relying on ANY legal pronouncement by Microsoft is even worse than relying on their technical pronouncements.
I like how Wine is apparently OK in this regard, since Microsoft has made (to my knowledge) no statements regarding patents that they might control that would apply to Wine.
If they promised not to sue us, then we'd really need to be worried.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote: [...]
(There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will become unnecessary.)
The impression I have been getting lately is that more and more Windows applications are using .Net in some way. Not that they are written from the ground up with .Net. But some business/productivity applications use it for addons or scripting and quite a few games use it for their launchers. So having a way to run these applications in Wine without requiring the users to first download and install Microsoft's .Net packages would be nice. This wine-mono package is a step in that direction.
If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' script.
If you run "wine uninstaller" and you have it installed (which you probably don't), it will show up in the list as something you can remove.
http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono also has a command line to remove it that will work for the foreseeable future.
On 06/01/2012 12:51 AM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' script.
If you run "wine uninstaller" and you have it installed (which you probably don't), it will show up in the list as something you can remove.
http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono also has a command line to remove it that will work for the foreseeable future.
Thank you. That was helpful.
I removed Mono and several older versions of Gecko from various prefix directories.
Yes, that was added in today's Git. When you do a prefix update, and a recent wine-mono (or native .NET) isn't installed, Wine will try to install it from a system location, and if that fails it will ask to download it. The wine-mono install is limited to your Wine prefix, and you don't have to have Mono on your host system. If you don't have the wine-mono msi package on your system, and you cancel the download, it won't be installed.
If you don't want to use it, and the dialog annoys you, override mscoree to disabled or native-only. Apps that don't need .NET should still work fine, but it's not a supported configuration.
I can respect irrational dislike. I sort of feel that way about Java (I'll generally avoid any software that requires it). But the ideal of Wine is for all programs to just work like on Windows, and we can't get there for .NET apps without this change.
On 06/01/2012 12:34 AM, Vincent Povirk wrote:
Yes, that was added in today's Git. When you do a prefix update, and a recent wine-mono (or native .NET) isn't installed, Wine will try to install it from a system location, and if that fails it will ask to download it. The wine-mono install is limited to your Wine prefix, and you don't have to have Mono on your host system. If you don't have the wine-mono msi package on your system, and you cancel the download, it won't be installed.
If you don't want to use it, and the dialog annoys you, override mscoree to disabled or native-only. Apps that don't need .NET should still work fine, but it's not a supported configuration.
I can respect irrational dislike. I sort of feel that way about Java (I'll generally avoid any software that requires it). But the ideal of Wine is for all programs to just work like on Windows, and we can't get there for .NET apps without this change.
Please add a --without-mono option to configure, and so on...
On 2012-06-02 12:25-0400 Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
Please add a --without-mono option to configure, and so on...
Yes, please!
We could argue all day whether it is a majority or strong minority, but the point is that a significant fraction of wine users (including me) just plain don't like mono for the reasons that have just been discussed so please make it totally straightforward for them to avoid it with a configure option.
Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin
Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).
Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net). __________________________
Linux-powered Science __________________________
Please add a --without-mono option to configure, and so on...
Yes, please!
Someone will have to write a patch, and then it will be up to Alexandre whether to accept it. Personally, I don't see a need for this. If you're accidentally installing addons somehow, that needs to be fixed in the addon system or you need to stop clicking through dialogs without thinking.
I don't think a configure option makes sense because the wine-mono package is not built as part of the wine build process. Given that we already have the addon system for managing these, some sort of "addon blacklist" might make more sense.
Vincent Povirk madewokherd@gmail.com writes:
Please add a --without-mono option to configure, and so on...
Yes, please!
Someone will have to write a patch, and then it will be up to Alexandre whether to accept it. Personally, I don't see a need for this. If you're accidentally installing addons somehow, that needs to be fixed in the addon system or you need to stop clicking through dialogs without thinking.
I don't think a configure option makes sense because the wine-mono package is not built as part of the wine build process. Given that we already have the addon system for managing these, some sort of "addon blacklist" might make more sense.
No need for a patch, configure --disable-mscoree should already work.
-
Alan W. Irwin -
Alexandre Julliard -
Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) -
Francois Gouget -
Max TenEyck Woodbury -
Vincent Povirk