HyperForum — Complete removal of Mono possible?

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (zapper) — Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:16:53 +0000

aloniv wrote:

The once popular packages depending on mono (Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy) are not in Arch's repo anyway (and thus not in Hyperbola's as well) so there's no practical need for mono anyway.
Keepass depends on it, but there are similar alternatives (keepassx/keepassx2).

Well its good to know this.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (throgh) — Sun, 03 Nov 2019 17:23:24 +0000

I'm just unsure about meson, but I think it's only the check about mono being available, no further dependency. It's a pity about openra and openbve, but afterwards Xamarin was bought by Microsoft. So Mono stays a problem!

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (aloniv) — Sun, 03 Nov 2019 12:21:37 +0000

The once popular packages depending on mono (Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy) are not in Arch's repo anyway (and thus not in Hyperbola's as well) so there's no practical need for mono anyway.

Keepass depends on it, but there are similar alternatives (keepassx/keepassx2).

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (zapper) — Sat, 02 Nov 2019 23:13:55 +0000

aloniv wrote:

I hope wine has their own reverse engineered version of mono.
There is a package called wine-mono in community repo.
community/wine-mono 4.7.0-1
Wine's built-in replacement for Microsoft's .NET Framework
I also support mono's removal.

Agreed completely.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (zapper) — Sat, 02 Nov 2019 23:11:46 +0000

Emulatorman wrote:

Thank you guys, i've created a todo list for its removal.

Wine's version is better imo anyways probably and more importantly, it doesn't have a questionable status.

Aka possible patents that could be used against free software.

Emulatorman, do you know what possible purpose mono has. Just wondering...

Regardless, removal is wise.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (emulatorman) — Sat, 02 Nov 2019 19:54:16 +0000

Thank you guys, i've created a todo list for its removal.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (aloniv) — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 23:12:03 +0000

I hope wine has their own reverse engineered version of mono.

There is a package called wine-mono in community repo.

community/wine-mono 4.7.0-1
Wine's built-in replacement for Microsoft's .NET Framework

I also support mono's removal.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (zapper) — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:48:00 +0000

throgh wrote:

Well, I know that Mono has its practical benefits. But the major problem are those depedencies from Microsoft and their patents of .Net, while the package gets abducted by Microsoft when time goes by.
The following packages have dependencies:
boo
dbus-sharp
fsharp
gettext-mono
gtk-sharp-2
gtk-sharp-3
ironpython
keepass
log4net
mono-addins
mono-basic
mono-debugger
mono-zeroconf
nini
nuget
openbve
openra
taglib-sharp
uwsgi-plugin-mono
xsp
avahi (optional)
diffoscope (optional)
graphviz (optional)
haxe (optional)
avahi (make)
graphviz (make)
gtk-sharp-2 (requires monodoc) (make)
lib32-libappindicator (make)
libappindicator (make)
mod_proxy_uwsgi (make)
python2-libappindicator (make)
uwsgi (make)
diffoscope (check)
meson (check)
And within the list there is already another dependency to a dbus-component, the C#-implementation. When mitigating dbus this should also get a review! For the further situation of patents another look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(sof … ;s_patents

Hmm... I didn't realize it was sponsored by microsoft. That's bad...

I hope wine has their own reverse engineered version of mono.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (throgh) — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:48:42 +0000

Well, I know that Mono has its practical benefits. But the major problem are those depedencies from Microsoft and their patents of .Net, while the package gets abducted by Microsoft when time goes by.

The following packages have dependencies:

boo
dbus-sharp
fsharp
gettext-mono
gtk-sharp-2
gtk-sharp-3
ironpython
keepass
log4net
mono-addins
mono-basic
mono-debugger
mono-zeroconf
nini
nuget
openbve
openra
taglib-sharp
uwsgi-plugin-mono
xsp
avahi (optional)
diffoscope (optional)
graphviz (optional)
haxe (optional)
avahi (make)
graphviz (make)
gtk-sharp-2 (requires monodoc) (make)
lib32-libappindicator (make)
libappindicator (make)
mod_proxy_uwsgi (make)
python2-libappindicator (make)
uwsgi (make)
diffoscope (check)
meson (check)

And within the list there is already another dependency to a dbus-component, the C#-implementation. When mitigating dbus this should also get a review! For the further situation of patents another look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(sof … ;s_patents

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (aether) — Thu, 31 Oct 2019 03:57:25 +0000

-1, mono is quite handy.

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (zapper) — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:56:22 +0000

Pretty sure the mono that's in the packages of hyperbola's repo is maybe by the developers of wine or something similiar, Emulatorman may know better, but in my opinion I see no problem with keeping mono.

Complete removal of Mono possible?

null@example.com (throgh) — Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:56:04 +0000

Hello together,

as written above in the subject: What do you think about it? From my point of view Mono seems to be like some kind of trojan horse in regards of patents and Microsoft already announced to create a complete, unified platform out of .Net-Framework, .Net-Core and Mono: .Net 5.0.

We should also remember: Microsoft does not love free software. So I think a complete removal of Mono in combination with all dependent packages would be good. Being independent, being free and no further stress with useless patents.