Jo Shields favors us with a special remix of Ubuntu.
Torrents at the PirateBay![32-bit][64-bit]
The description:
Chicken Little Remix 9.04, AMD64 edition
—————————————-Chicken Little Remix is a modified copy of the Ubuntu “alternate” installer, with all packages relating to Mono removed from the image entirely. No Mono-related packages will be installed onto your system if you install using this ISO instead of an ISO from ubuntu.com
This process is achieved relatively simply. Firstly, a copy of the original ISO’s contents is made to disk, and all offending packages are removed. here’s the list: f-spot tomboy binfmt-support cli-common gvfs-bin libart2.24-cil libflickrnet2.1.5-cil libgconf2.24-cil libgdiplus libgif4 libglade2.0-cil libglib2.0-cil libglitz-glx1 libglitz1 libgmime-2.0-2a libgmime2.2a-cil libgnome-keyring1.0-cil libgnome-vfs2.24-cil libgnome2.24-cil libgnomepanel2.24-cil libgtk2.0-cil libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil libmono-addins0.2-cil libmono-cairo2.0-cil libmono-corlib2.0-cil libmono-data-tds2.0-cil libmono-data2.0-cil libmono-getoptions2.0-cil libmono-i18n2.0-cil libmono-posix2.0-cil libmono-security2.0-cil libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil libmono-sqlite2.0-cil libmono-system-data2.0-cil libmono-system-web2.0-cil libmono-system2.0-cil libmono0 libmono2.0-cil libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil libndesk-dbus1.0-cil libsqlite0 mono-2.0-gac mono-2.0-runtime mono-common mono-gac mono-jit mono-runtime
Next, the ubuntu-keyring package is modified and replaced to inject my (Debian Mono co-maintainer) GPG key. This is required in order for the modified package manifest on the CD to be accepted as signed off by the CD creator, otherwise installation is refused. The modified keyring package is replaced on first update, but the GPG key remains trusted in the apt-key store.
For the paranoid amongst you, this does indeed mean that I (Debian Mono co-maintainer) have had the opportunity to tamper with any packages on the install media, and that you need to trust me (Debian Mono co-maintainer) to have your best interests at heart before using this CD. Trust is so important these days, isn’t it?
Hooray for Chicken Little! Sqwaak!
#1 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
Bok bok bok?
#2 by Jo Shields on July 29th, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnRGzTuuyR8 ?
#3 by tacone on July 28th, 2009
He made it rain.
(
#4 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
Here’s the list, for the record:
f/f-spot/ t/tomboy/ c/cli-common/ g/gvfs/gvfs-bin_1.2.2-0ubuntu1_i386.deb g/gnome-sharp2/ g/gnome-desktop-sharp2/ libf/libflickrnet/ libg/libgdiplus/ g/giflib/ g/glitz/ g/gmime2.2/ m/mono-addins/ n/ndesk-dbus/ n/ndesk-dbus-glib/ s/sqlite/ g/gnome-keyring-sharp/ g/gtk-sharp2/ m/mono/
#5 by Dan Serban on July 28th, 2009
There seems to be something wrong with the torrent. The download is not kicking in.
#6 by Dan Serban on July 28th, 2009
Tried again from the command line with the aria2 download manager to see what’s going on. Here’s the error message:
“ERROR – Unrecognized URI or unsupported protocol: udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80/announce?info_hash=%f80……..”
#7 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
Okay, kicked off a manual btdownloadcurses rather than using torrentflux, I’m showing some upload activity
#8 by Dan Serban on July 28th, 2009
Yep, confirmed.
#9 by Dan Serban on July 28th, 2009
Side note:
I’m wondering why it was necessary to remove sqlite / libsqlite0.
I seem to remember those being dependencies of Firefox – the “awesome bar” being powered by them.
#10 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
libsqlite0 is used by F-Spot
libsqlite3-0 is used by Firefox
Pingback: Dan Serban (allsystemsarego) 's status on Tuesday, 28-Jul-09 11:47:45 UTC - Identi.ca
#11 by Jason on July 28th, 2009
@Jo,
Are all the so-called “offending” packages Mono packages? Somehow I was under the impression that Mono packages had “mono” in the name somewhere.
#12 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
The offending packages are F-Spot, Tomboy, and their unique dependencies (i.e. packages which are only installed in order to satisfy dependencies of those two apps)
#13 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5028124
Obsolete computers are people too
#14 by Dan Serban on July 28th, 2009
md5sum ChickenLittleRemix_9.04_r2_amd64.iso
b8da288663deb4c6a665c9b2febabbc4 ChickenLittleRemix_9.04_r2_amd64.iso
#15 by Jo Shields on July 28th, 2009
Close enough
#16 by Jo Shields on July 29th, 2009
Roy’s known about the chicken since yesterday, yet hasn’t talked about it. Apparently he has no love for poultry
http://boycottnovell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/irc-log-28072009.html#tJul%2028%2010:47:13
#17 by vexorian on July 30th, 2009
Please make it for 9.10 when it comes up.
What’s this keyring stuff? Does it mean you need to be a MOTU/packager to make remixes? I was thinking on something like this with gnote and gthumb, but with an outstanding upload speed of 5KB/s a torrent would fail
So maybe in the 9.10 version you could add them?
*86 computers are “obsolete” now, yikes.
#18 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
The “Release” file needs to be GPG-signed to be accepted by the installer. Release contains the md5sums of the Packages.gz files. Therefore, if you change the package manifest on the disc, then you need a newly signed Release. And the GPG key for the signer needs to be in one of the udebs loaded by the installer (where it’s 100x easier to recycle ubuntu-keyring than use a new package).
The GPG key can be anyone’s. In this case, it’s mine.
#19 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
Oh, as for adding packages, feature requests cost my standard mono-nono rate.
#20 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
Bums. I was accidentally throttling the upload at 10k each. Now set to 25k each (still need my internet to be usable!)
#21 by Dan Serban on July 30th, 2009
32-bit torrent stuck at 88.26%
idling.
#22 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
Try restarting the client, I’m definitely re-seeding after restarting it with a faster cap
#23 by Dan Serban on July 30th, 2009
Yep, I’m about to become the second i386 seeder
#24 by Dan Serban on July 30th, 2009
Seeding i386. Will begin tests soon.
md5sum ChickenLittleRemix_9.04_r2_i386.iso
5dc36493376d0c0ada8641d959e4cd2a ChickenLittleRemix_9.04_r2_i386.iso
#25 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
Good enough for government work
#26 by vexorian on July 30th, 2009
Torrent files include a lot of hashes for different blocks of the file being seeded. If a block’s hash doesn’t match, it repeats the download of that block.
So, if you download from the torrent, it should be ok, unless your disk was full or something, if you want to be sure, you can for example in the transmission torrent client, do a right click on the torrent file and then ‘Verify downloaded data’.
#27 by bambox on July 30th, 2009
If the ISO was created simply by removing some of the stuff in /pool (I assume) and adding a gpg key, it does make me wonder why on earth no-one has bothered to do this before. If that’s beyond the abilitrons of most people, then I can see other ways of doing it, such as by running “sudo apt-get nuke mono-stuff” after installation and then using remasterys or similar to create a new LiveCD. I mean, people make all sorts of silly remixes whereby the default themes and applications are slightly different.
Considering lots of people seem to have the view that Mono stuff should be shunted off to Universe and not completely nuked from orbit for the default desktop, it makes me wonder why more people aren’t downloading this thing. (Currently my stats show me I am one of six seeders for the 386 package and that there are six leechers too.) But then on the other hand, I can understand why people don’t bother with remixes in general. Linux makes it so simple to customise your desktop that there seems little point in downloading an entire distro just to have a few default settings changed. (This also irks me when you see distro reviewers bang on endlessly about themes and installed packages; it’s really not that important, chaps.)
So to sum up, I see this remix as an act of good will by Jo, but not necessarily as a useful barometer of Mono-opposition or whatever. I suspect many people will download it just to prove a point, or to act as seeders for whoever wants it. The people who really don’t like Mono, however, will have already nuked it from their computers long ago, making this remix useless to them. It’s good to have options, though.
As someone who is mostly ambivalent about the whole thing (veering towards the wary side of the fence, and I think the Moonlight covenant is abhorrent, but other than that, I’m fency enough), I’d like to know what other people think about just what anyone hopes to achieve by getting Mono stuff out of the default installation. Removing it is trivial, after all. Conversely, why ought it be included in default any way?
#28 by Jo Shields on July 30th, 2009
The most zealous of Mono opponents seem to have a policy of pretending this doesn’t exist. Roy’s known about it for days now without mentioning it on his site. This is the only anti-Mono blog to talk about it. Essentially, there seems to be some effort to pretend it doesn’t exist, from the people who should be supporting it most.
It shouldn’t. The very best Linux apps as selected by assorted distro maintainers should. Sometimes those choices need dependencies of one kind or another, and if the app is worthwhile, the deps should be pulled in.
#29 by purewho on August 1st, 2009
As long as Mono (and its apps) in Ubuntu by default only installs ECMA submitted parts and this is clearly mentioned and enforced it is ok. Otherwise it is a disaster waiting to happen.
If you want the free software movement to survive, which is what has given you the platform for Mono in the first place, then think beyond your own little pond and the simplicity it provides you in doing some stuff and look at enhancing the alternatives that are out there, if they have any short comings, yes it will take more effort, but if you are reaping the benefit of others efforts in running the free platforms today, why not give back more than what you may be willing to provide normally as a gratitude to the efforts of the people till now and as a gift to people who will use in future.
#30 by Jo Shields on August 1st, 2009
Ooh, a third-party endorsement from Tacone. Which means it’s also been on Planet Ubuntu Users. Looky looky: http://www.stefanoforenza.com/ubuntu-mono-chicken/
Still, it’s hardly flying off the shelves… judging by the numbers from TPB’s tracker and my own seeding, I’d be hard-pushed to say ten people have downloaded it.
Without Roy’s endorsement, is the whole effort doomed to underexposure?
#31 by menek on August 1st, 2009
Does it contain a kernel with FAT or NTFS support? Or the client for MS shares? Or the font hitting algorithms from Apple?
Those who want to avoid any “patent danger in the US” should think about remixing a distro without kernel
#32 by Jason on August 2nd, 2009
Sigh.
The sad thing is you probably think this is a good argument. Despite the fact that I have directly addressed it. Despite the fact that the FSF has directly addressed it.
Even if you don’t agree with any of the rebuttals,it is still poor form to simply repeat old, tired and answered arguments. That is not productive debate and it is intellectually dishonest.
#33 by tacone on August 2nd, 2009
Frankly, I don’t think the experiment will solve anything. But if there’s a chance to have it gain mantainers and become decently supported remix, then I’m all for it.
#34 by Jo Shields on August 2nd, 2009
In 3 years since Mono became part of a default Ubuntu install, I’m the first person to actually make a specific Mono-free version. It took me an hour. 1007 days between Edgy releasing, and CLR releasing. About 1 hour of 24,000 hours between the events was the complete development time for the remix. If we estimate the size of the anti-Mono Ubuntu community as about, I dunno, a dozen to two dozen people, even if they had to learn the process from scratch, we’re talking somewhere in the region of a quarter million man-hours.
Even five, or ten, of those quarter-million hours, were too much like hard work for the anti-Mono crowd? You can guess how many offers (let alone serious ones) for help I’ve received in my inbox.
If, as the anti-Mono folks presume, there’s a significant number of people out there who want something like this, then why isn’t it being shouted about from the rooftops? Is 8 downloads of the Mono-free equivalent really going to help any arguments regarding changes to the main distribution? Surely some exposure might actually attract a single lone solitary contributor? How do you folks imagine a distro is made – it ain’t by magic!
One argument I’d accept as valid is “oh Jaunty is so old now”, which is why I’m planning on making CLR Karmic within a couple of days of regular Karmic. But that doesn’t explain away the zero exposure (okay, one link in a post about Novell products, not mentioning it by name nor linking to the original discussion) in certain anti-Mono blogs.
Generally speaking though, CLR’s under-exposure serves my purposes well – as a demonstration of the complete futility of doing what Roy wants.
#35 by vexorian on August 3rd, 2009
Your remix nowadays is just a 9.04 setup without Mono, something easy to do when you already got 9.04 downloaded in your computer, which for most of the anti-mono guys that still use ubuntu is true. In my case, downloading a whole CD ISO from a torrent actually raises the power bill too much, so it is not going to be easy to justify. If you do it for 9.10 then I’ll do it (as It would save me download time, rather than double it).
There’s also little advertisement of this remix, honestly I only heard of it in mono-nono. Besides the fact that most of the anti-mono folks’ numbers are probably spread in the other distros’ marketshare already, specifically Fedora… Cause really, for most of them it sounds easier to switch to another distro than to make/install remixes.
Karmic is going to be in pre-release state till October. So, back when you make a karmic release “within days” it would hardly have a lot of attention either.
Anyway, before rushing to conclusions, wait to have a 9.10 release version of this released just about the same time as the normal karmic. The sample would be better. It will still have VERY few downloads. But it would be more relevant than the current anecdote you got now (which as for all anecdotes isn’t really much).
#36 by vexorian on August 3rd, 2009
“You can guess how many offers (let alone serious ones) for help I’ve received in my inbox.”
Well, your initial announcement made it look like a one-time deal. And also you put emphasis on how easy it was to do it. Do you need help? In what areas specifically? (So we could know if we can actually help)
#37 by Jo Shields on August 3rd, 2009
The traditional roles and rules of Free Software apply, as with any project – what appears to you, personally, to be missing or deficient – and how much of that deficiency do you feel you can help with? That’s not limited to packaging or programming, but generally. Why is CLR not as popular as “real” Ubuntu? How can that be addressed?
#38 by Jason on August 2nd, 2009
@Jo,
For one thing, if someone is running Ubuntu that doesn’t want mono, it’s not that hard to remove it – and it has probably already been done.
This is my case (although I do seed the x86_64 flavor when my desktop is turned on).
There’s also the consideration that anyone running another distro is unlikely to switch back over just for this “one-time” respin.
It’s strange to make the argument on one hand that “Oh, Mono is so easy to remove if you don’t want it”, and then on the other say “Now that we have this mono-free alternate installer, why isn’t it being crazy downloaded?”
As far as helping, people can only do what they know – or learn to do something new and then do that. I volunteered to help and felt like I was insulted, and I’ve been reading on how to do a GUI version with some of the points being talked about (like installing alternate applications and so forth).
It’s also unfair to imply that the only valid action to take is for someone to come up with a mono-free respin, and if they don’t do that they are some sort of hypocrite or lump on a log or whatever.
As a thought experiment, consider if the “real” Ubuntu was mono-free, and you were to make a “+mono” alternate installer remix. Exactly what do you think the uptake of that remix would be?
#39 by Jo Shields on August 2nd, 2009
You get out what you put in. With the equivalent coverage and equivalent effort? Equivalent uptake. With the extra effort that community should enable, and the specific community of doers that surround mono? I dunno, perhaps something to compare to the similarly-themed Satanic Edition, if not aiming for higher goals like “provide all the good shit regardless of legal issues” Mint?
As for your previous offer of help, my intention wasn’t to insult, it was a genuine enquiry – i.e. “from whom will this be better received?”. And you correctly point out that people can only help with what they know – but there are plenty of things people could do to help that they know – from “advocacy” through to some kind of web presence through to artwork through to packaging any old crap through to $DEITY knows what else. Not everything comes down to “do you already know how to make an ISO” – and as I’ve said before, that’s something I’d be willing to give some level of tutoring over (as far as my own knowledge extends, anyway). I’m guessing LiveCD editing involves a loopback mount of the SquashFS image, a chroot, and “aptitude purge”.
I should add a brief note about replacement apps at this point – Gnote and Solang (which AFAIK have been suggested) are not in Jaunty (which CLR 9.04 is based on). I would not personally favour including third-party unofficial packages of unknown quality.
So, let’s accept that CLR 9.04 is out, and nobody cares. Fine. That’s life. At least some kid got a board game out of it. It’s too little, too late. What do people want from a Mono-free Ubuntu then? What should go into CLR 9.10? I need to hear *serious and well formed meaning no mononono.deb suggestions thank you* suggestions etc in more than enough time, because frankly, I’m not seeing enough uptake to justify any level of beta/rc/final process rather than simply pushing out a final image when the time comes, which leaves very little room for iterative development.
You correctly point out that it’s so very simple to remove Mono from an installed image that there’s little point to a special distro which simply removes it, and I’d agree with you – but that’s not what the repeated demands for a Mono-free Ubuntu suggest. The Ubuntu Desktop Team have THEIR vision for what should go into a distro, and here’s a chance for the collective you to manifest YOURS – I just find it surprising that there’s so little interest in doing so.
#40 by Jason on August 2nd, 2009
Fair enough on the “insult”, perhaps I was getting butthurt too easily.
I would like to see a full-fledged Mono-free respin. Keeping in mind I don’t know jack crap (yet) how to do anything in this area whatsoever, here are the sorts of things I have thought about:
- Live CD / GUI
- Custom Wallpaper
- Alternative Applications
–GNote (I feel this is just fine)
–Solang (I am not sure how stable this is)
–AWN/LaunchBox (Some alternative to Gnome Do)
-FSF links in Firefox
I think we are both in agreement that simply “mono-free” is not very compelling. It is a bit of a misrepresentation to state that since people don’t think Mono should be in the default that will automatically translate over to people adopting CLR.
The idea that a “Mono-free” re-spin is equivalent to “Mono should not be in Ubuntu by default” is a little bit of “separate but equal” I think.
The honest question in terms of CLR becomes, can a compelling re-spin be created around the basis of the idea of Mono-Free? There are barriers to overcome; not only the barriers that all re-spins face relative to the “main” line – but also the very honest question that is simply wanting mono off your machine sufficient to adopt a re-spin?
#41 by Jo Shields on August 2nd, 2009
Assuming there are no problems with disk space (and that’s a big assumption, I have no idea how big those deps could get) then from your list:
- Live CD / GUI
Requires me to re-educate myself. My gut feeling is it’s not going to be overly difficult
- Custom Wallpaper
Including it I don’t see as at all hard – no idea about how to *set* it as default though, that requires research
- Alternative Applications
+GNote (I feel this is just fine)
Fair enough.
+ Solang (I am not sure how stable this is)
Nor am I. But it’s in Karmic at the very least.
+ AWN/LaunchBox (Some alternative to Gnome Do)
This is where I have no idea how big things might get
- FSF links in Firefox
No idea how to include this. I really hope it doesn’t involve a custom firefox package
#42 by vexorian on August 3rd, 2009
Gnome-do is not in the default ubuntu, so I don’t think AWN/Launchbox would be worth it. They are in the repos so, it is not a problem, is it?
Solang seems to be on an early stage, though we have gthumb which is still usable enough.
Custom wallpaper? Is there really a good reason for it?
FSF links in firefox? Sounds like extra work.
Live CD/ GUI, I think that the most it needs is an update of the logo in the first menu?
#43 by vexorian on August 3rd, 2009
Jason, do you happen to have both ubuntu 9.04 ISO and chicken remix ISO? This is something I have seen before, if two CDs’ contents are very similar, it could be possible to save a lot of download time by doing the following, I’ve been wondering if you could try:
* Backup both ISOs.
* Replace chicken little’s ISO with the original ubuntu one.
* Go to your bittorrent client, then head to chicken little’s torrent and do “Verify local data”
* Is the final percentage after doing this procedure much higher than 0%?
#44 by vexorian on August 3rd, 2009
Well, you could wait for Fedora 12 and then make a remix with tomboy instead of gnote.
#45 by Jason on August 3rd, 2009
@vexorian,
Part of the issue here, to me at least, is given that:
1. It is easy to remove Mono from Ubuntu
2. Any respin faces a large barrier to adoption
What then, could make CLR a viable ongoing project, rather than just a one- (or two-) off item?
If it is just removal of Mono, then that is probably not worth it.
If it is just removal of Mono, and only then substituting of two (or possibly three) Mono apps that are in Ubuntu by default, that is more, but probably still not enough.
So, that’s why I am thinking of things like those that are on the list.
Because a mono-free respin is not the equivalent to a mono-free Ubuntu, this something that I think is worth asking.
#46 by Lex on August 12th, 2009
Maybe you would have more people downloading the remix if it was not named “Chicken Little” (not exactly a nice name) which just happens to abbreviate to CLR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime
I mean, are you for real, Jo? Or is it just an elaborate form of trolling…
@Jason
“It is a bit of a misrepresentation to state that since people don’t think Mono should be in the default that will automatically translate over to people adopting CLR.”
LOL man, sorry to break it to you, but you’ve been royally… anyway…
#47 by Jason on August 12th, 2009
@Lex:
No, Jo explained early on his reasoning for chosing the name “Chicken Little”, which included the fact that it intialized to CLR.
I don’t begrudge him his naming choice.
#48 by Lex on August 12th, 2009
@Jason:
Very well, my generous host. Please be kind and put yourself in shoes of a linux user browsing these pages. If the said user made it on this site he has some concerns over mono, such as:
“mono is terrible, it must be avoided”, or
“mono is so great, people should stop bashing it”.
Let’s assume the user in question has actually taken time to browse wikipedia and learn a bit about mono and .net. Or we can go even further and pretend that the user in question is a developer, and a concerned would very likely know what CLR is.
Now, you have to ask yourself, do these users know the reason Jo has chosen the name CLR for this remix? And more importantly you have to ask if they believe Jo.
So, for just a moment pretend that you do not know of any excuses to choose such name. Then read your comment. Scratch your head in confusion.
Then pretend you are a pro-mono person and read your comment again. Now smile.
Either way, to an average user without the deep knowledge of the subject your comments look… rather silly.
#49 by Jo Shields on August 12th, 2009
How about “Mono developers are assfuckers remix”? Better?
As it happens, the abbreviation was an accident – but one that makes me giggle.
As to the name….. well, obviously I don’t think the anti-Mono “side” is “right”. I wouldn’t contribute on what I do if I did. Is the name a dig? Yes. But perhaps the point, if people weren’t doing such a terrifying job of missing it, should be I made a custom distro, I can put what I want in it and call it what I want. And people can either act affronted (see: Roy) or they can re-take the name for themselves & use it as a badge of honour (see: Jason) which is a FAR healthier attitude.
If you want to make your own version with a more “pleasing” name, go ahead – I even uploaded the damn recipe I used (check the comments on my blog). it might be a first step towards someone else taking some responsibility for making a “better” Mono-free Ubuntu. Not that I don’t enjoy the current irony, of course.
#50 by Lex on August 12th, 2009
@Jo Shields
What was your purpose in making that custom distro?
From your own words:
“Generally speaking though, CLR’s under-exposure serves my purposes well – as a demonstration of the complete futility of doing what Roy wants.”
So you have made it to prove some point… and the name of course helps you prove that point. Whether or not I am going to make a version with a different name wont change the fact that you consider your point “proved”.
Was it all just for show?
Somehow I do not feel all warm and fuzzy inside because of your actions. In fact, I feel manipulated and treated like a pawn just so you can prove something.
Not to mention the fact that I’ve wasted my bandwidth proving your point. I must admit, at first I fell for it, but if you look past the surface it’s not too hard to see what is really going on.
You can argue all you want about some points. But at the end of the day your actions show your true nature.
#51 by Jo Shields on August 12th, 2009
To prove a point.
That’s right. Roy’s decision not to mention that someone actually made a Mono-free Ubuntu version (something he and his groupies have been crying out for for a long time) served as a nice demonstration of how utterly worthless it is to give a single concession to that crowd – essentially weakening their arguing power.
FWIW that silence was broken after Roy’s idol Sam “race card” Varghese made a positive post about it on ITwire.
The name doesn’t prove a point, it merely amuses me.
Not all for show – but the expectation was that it would end up as such, since nobody would take the hint.
The point here is when I do something “just for show”, there’s a working ISO at the end of it. The point to prove is that crating a Mono-free Ubuntu is absolutely not difficult, that anyone could have done it at any point in the past three years – and, to an extent, that despite the simplicity with which people could have achieved something tangible, that they still think pissing & moaning is the right way to achieve their goals. Read my latest blog post, it pretty much covers the whole thing.
I don’t want you to feel warm and fuzzy. Did you READ the description of the torrent on TPB? No, warm and fuzzy isn’t the goal. I’m not trying to appease you. I’m trying to motivate you. I’ve uploaded a sarcastic demonstration of your (the collective your) lack of motivation. If anything, I’m trying to annoy you into some actual software-based response of the “well fuck Shields and fuck his chinchillas too, let’s make a PROPER non-insulting Mono-less Ubuntu. With blackjack. And hookers.” variety. Make a better Ubuntu in your own image – you even have a damn starting point and instructions now.
Be sure to send the bandwidth bill to my PA.
Oh, and let’s hear all about my “true nature”. With pictures, preferably!
#52 by Lex on August 12th, 2009
@Jo Shields
You have no excuse abusing people’s trust for some pitiful argument against some Roy. Who the hell is Roy and why are you so obsessed with him anyway?
“The point here is when I do something “just for show”, there’s a working ISO at the end of it.”
Wow man… you have a superiority complex or something. But you know what, when I do something that looks like an attempt to help people, it is genuine.
Here is a reminder for you about what Ubuntu SHOULD stand for (from ubuntu webpage):
>The essence of Ubuntu is that “a person is a person through other people”. It describes humanity as “being-with-others” and prescribes what “being-with-others” should be all about. Ubuntu emphasises sharing, consensus, and togetherness. It’s a perfect concept for Free Software and open source.<
You know what, if you are an example of the consensus and togetherness in Ubuntu, then I think that distro is not going to last very long. I have dumped it several month ago because of mono, and after your stunt I dont think I am ever coming back.
And for your information: one does not have to make a mono-free Ubuntu, there are OTHER distributions.
#53 by Jo Shields on August 12th, 2009
Which trust is being abused?
Doesn’t there need to be trust first?
And an actual abuse?
In what way am I not delivering what I say on the tin, to anyone who explicitly trusts me enough to install?
As for Roy, he’s the kid who runs Boycott Novell. Most lies relating to Mono can be traced back there if you follow them enough. His childishness, and its regurgitation, have moved from annoying me to amusing me.
What do you want, exactly? In the 3 years since Edgy, none of “you lot” has bothered to produce what you demand – Ubuntu with Mono removed. Not only have I produced what you demand, but even instructions so you can do it yourselves without my “taint” – and yet still it’s not enough. You don’t just look a gift horse in the mouth, you throw it off a cliff and complain if can’t fly.
I don’t think you understand what those words mean.
You know what, if you are an example of the consensus and togetherness in Ubuntu, then I think that distro is not going to last very long. I have dumped it several month ago because of mono, and after your stunt I dont think I am ever coming back.
There is great consensus and togetherness in Ubuntu. I have nothing but respect for my peers and the work they do, other than gentle teasing reserved for the Java packagers. If people come to Ubuntu development channels looking for help in sharing contributions, and I know the answer, I’ll tell them. Someone wants to know something, or help with fixing something, I’ll try to help.
Bravo for your logic though, nicely done. If I make a release which instead of removing Mono, I add every single Mono app, then will you come rushing back? How about if I make a modified Fedora or openSUSE CD?
Then what is achieved by all pissing and moaning regarding Mono being in Ubuntu, a decision made in 2006 by the Desktop people? If Ubuntu is a “lost cause”, then would the “anti-Mono” people make non-contributing demands over it, and why would they act affronted that nobody’s listening?
If nobody had said “Ubuntu should be Mono free” or “there should be a Mono-free version of Ubuntu” then I wouldn’t have done it.