Homer wrote:
Verily I say unto thee, that Megabyte spake thusly:
Okay, so we've established you are opposed to the use of Mono which
is fine. So isn't the answer for you to use a Linux distribution and
Windows manager that is Mono free or do you believe that no one
should have the right to use Mono because you are opposed to it? If
the latter can you please explain why?
Quick analogy: If you use too much salt in your cooking, you can't take
it out of the food afterwards, but if you don't use any at /all/, those
who actually /want/ salt can always add some later.
Why should the majority of Free Software users be subjected to
Microsoft's bitter salt by default, when the minority with a taste for
it could simply add it in later, and save the rest of us from being
initially poisoned, then forced to remake the soup to get rid of the
salt?
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This isn't about what you are "allowed" to do, it's about the influence
/you/ have on /others/ by supporting Mono, since your support of
Microsoft's toxic garbage helps spread it into the Free Software
community ... a community that comprises many people who don't want that
garbage, and moreover, don't want the Free Software community they're a
part of to become damaged by it. It helps that poisonous technology
become a defacto standard, and a default condition in most GNU/Linux
distros.
Why should users of Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, or any other distro have to
run away and seek shelter in gNewSense, just to escape the poisonous
Microsoft "IP" that you helped promote? I don't want to use gNewSense, I
want to use Fedora ... free from Microsoft's influence and control.
I guess I don't see the majority being affected because if the majority
don't want it, they will use a distro that doesn't include it and the
distros that do will become less popular and may need to rethink their
strategy. On the other hand if the majority don't have a problem with
it then those that include it will likely become more popular.
Roy posted just today about a remix of Ubuntu which will be mono free.
Inasmuch as I could (and do) simply remove Mono from my Fedora
installations, similarly /you/ could simply /add/ it to gNewSense (or
any other distro) from upstream (i.e. Novell). Is there some particular
reason you insist on obtaining this toxin directly from your distro,
thus causing every other user of that distro to be infected with it by
default?
Including Mono by default affects /everyone/.
Including Mono based software in the repositories to be installed
afterwards would work as you suggest. Not much different than
installing the restricted extras in the Ubuntu repositories. I would
have no concerns with that approach.
Excluding Mono by default affects only Mono/Microsoft fanatics, and only
insofar as they must then obtain the software from elsewhere.
This does not prevent these fanatics from obtaining Mono, but it does
protect everyone else from being tainted by it by default.
So yes, you are "allowed" to do whatever you want to do ... to yourself.
Just make sure you keep it that way.
I think where you have this wrong is assuming I make the decision
whether Mono is included or not. Instead it is those that produce the
distros that will make that determination and as those doing the work I
think it is their right. Calling them fanatics is no different than
calling you a fanatic for wanting to exclude it. Just because someone
has a different view doesn't make them a fanatic.
|
|
