1

Topic: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

2

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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.

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!

3

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

-1, mono is quite handy.

4 (edited by throgh 2019-10-31 07:56:01)

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

5

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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.

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!

6 (edited by aloniv 2019-11-01 23:21:35)

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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.

7

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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

8

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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. wink

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!

9

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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.

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!

10 (edited by aloniv 2019-11-03 12:31:16)

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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).

11

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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!

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

12

Re: Complete removal of Mono possible?

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. smile

Hyperbola:

The Stable Secure Libre Arch!