[Mono-list] Ubuntu

Wed Aug 11 14:33:13 EDT 2010

I had the same questions you had.
I am a Mint user (the 4 largest OS in world, after ubuntu, OSX, Win32), and Mint is very
pro "user experience" out of the box, and given were it is authored, it has lessor issue with
licensing/patents and such. They actually have had (if I remember correctly)
moonlight installed out of the box, in addition to codec's and such that are not normally on other distros.
I did find Joe's badger ports and it does the trick for me. I also am hoping I can assist in 
that effort in some way, as I am glued to Mint.
I understand your issues/concerns and also the other side as well (see Miguel's and other posts).

It really can be seen as a marketing trade off. It costs to create these and support them,
BUT I can't help thinking that investing the time better supporting Mint/Ubuntu, that it would
(but only a guess) pay off by bringing more people into the community, there by getting a huge
return on investment, one that makes it self sufficient. So to that end I do see it as odd. 
However, there needs to be community,
and free contribution to the efforts, and hopefully, ideally, that can handle the task (in the case
of Mint/Ubuntu). The other side of looking at it is, with Mint/Ubuntu being so huge, and statistically
speaking, should generate a large pool of free resource to look after the task of its own repos for Mono.

This brings me to another question. Suppose a combination of resources can build the Ubuntu/Mint
packages (solid builds as they progress, even some targeted just for developers with the latest and greatest). 
It helps to have the packages (PPA) come from some place official. I know about badger ports, I trust it, so I 
install from it, but thats just me. It seems to me that from the trust aspect, to cater to the 
most paranoid, doesn't the PPA have to (should) come from go-mono.com, or the domain of the
distro? It may not always be possible to hang it off the disto's domain, so that leaves go-mono.com 
(and its aliases), but "hosting" a PPA or equivalent at go-mono, that involves ......?
This reminds me of packman from when i used opensuse. It is listed on the opensuse site, so one
get the "official" feeling, as apposed to just a repo added from some domain that technically could
be (but usual unlikely) rogue.

So putting aside the question of where the effort comes from for better ubuntu/mint support ....
assuming its there, where can the PPA "officially" be housed for the paranoid (and rightfully so)
consumer? Also, in it being "officially" housed, it also then benefits by that exposure, that is
it has become "official", its were people will naturally look for it, which has brought us around
full circle.

tl

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:54:37 +1200
Daniel Hughes <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the latest mono develop work on the version of mono shipped with
> ubuntu 10.04? no
> Does the latest mono develop work with the version of mono shipped
> with ubuntu? yes
> 
> Your argument would hold up if the above was not the cause, the
> problem is that mono is moving far to fast for that approach to be
> viable.
> 
> So mono develop has added badger ports to their download page. (its a
> PPA for people follow this thread) but its not supported by the mono
> team like on windows and mac and opensuse.
> 
> Do you realize that ubuntu has more mono users then those other
> "supported" operating systems. The banshee usage stats prove this.
> Windows has first class support and yet no one uses mono on windows
> because .net is faster and more stable. Even mono develop for windows
> runs on .net and not on mono.
> 
> How much effort does the mono team go to create mono installers for
> windows? isn't that the responsibility of Microsoft to make mono work
> on windows?
> 
> What about Mac how much effort does the mono team spend making mono
> run on Mac isn't that the responsibility of Apple?
> 
> So it's not about user base. The has been as must as stated on here
> that its because ubuntu is linux. So the mono team doesn't support
> ubuntu because its a linux distro. Linux distro  are not important to
> the mono team. Closed operating systems are much more important. Even
> if people don't use mono on those closed systems. The exception is
> openuses which just so happens to be funded by Novell.... interesting
> how that works....
> 
> I just finished lessening to the ubuntu uk podcast in which they
> interview Jo Shields aka directhex (the guy who maintains the
> badgerports PPA) and what he says about mono on ubuntu is quite
> interesting and is definitely worth a listen. Here is the link
> http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/2010/07/21/s03e12-the-country-fair/
> 
> Ubuntu is one of the most mono accepting non novell distros out there
> in terms of what mono applications they include by default, but what
> we get from mono team amounts to a slap in the face.
> 
> Does windows include mono applications by default? no. Does apple? no.
> Does ubuntu? yes. So how does mono thank ubuntu for its support? by
> giving it the big middle finger.
> 
> Microsoft and Apple do not package mono or include mono by default.
> And mono thanks them for this by providing them with first class
> support.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense to me at all.
> 
> (I sent the email to the sender by mistake because the reply button in
> gmail replies to the sender not the list.)
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Bojan Rajkovic <severedcross at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does GNOME maintain PPA's like this? Does any project?
> >
> > On Aug 10, 2010 6:35 PM, "Daniel Hughes" <trampster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No one expects mono to be pushed out as a automatic update on ubuntu.
> > We do however expect a PPA which is on even footing with windows, mac
> > etc. I.E same day support to the same quality. And supported by the
> > mono team.
> >
> > That is all.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Bojan Rajkovic <severedcross at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 08/10/2010 10:03 AM, Christopher Monroe wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll second the complaint about the foru...
> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.co...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
> 

-- 
ted leslie <tleslie at tcn.net>