Friday, February 1, 2008


Story here, referencing this blog.

It was quite hard to find an actual claim in this article: there is no single piece of text that seems to be something we can evaluate in terms of facts. The nearest is this statement:

"It is, by this stage, becoming clearer that Jeff Waugh’s promise was not trustworthy. GNOME is apparently becoming Mono-dependent, which is a shame."

But the implication is pretty clear; GNOME is now, or soon, dependent on Mono. The source is a bit better, though, it says:

"[T]he GNOME guys want not only to replace libdbus with ndesk-dbus, but they want to nail down everything so that the new ndesk-dbus/Mono bindings are used in as much as possible!"

This is about, then, the acceptance of of ndesk-dbus into the GNOME external dependency set, which is an entirely managed DBUS implementation. The main point missed by the authors of the posts is that there already was a DBUS binding - it was buggy and unreliable, but this isn't about replacing libdbus itself, but replacing the C# binding to libdbus with a managed DBUS implementation. Fundamentally, we're talking about C# apps losing a non-managed dependency, not GNOME gaining a managed dependency. Specifically, it's not about replacing libdus.

More widely speaking though, the fact that it makes it into the external dependency list doesn't make it a GNOME dependency per se - the original decision on Mono/Gtk# hasn't changed, it's allowable as a desktop module. The addition of an external dependency is only of interest to those Gtk# apps in that module set anyway - those are still removable, and thus that external dependency is removable.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Knocking OLPC...

Article here, referencing stories such as this one.

As often happens when commercial deals happen within the free software world - as outside the free software world - the exact terms of the OLPC and Microsoft deal are somewhat sketchy. It's very easy to assume something is true, when in fact there isn't really any way of justifying that assumption.

There's one particular statement in the above article I wanted to pick out (the rest of it is mostly an opinion piece):

"Nicholas Negroponte has always been willing to go where the wind blows: the original OLPC prototypes ran Debian, notable because it's produced by a public-benefit non-profit. Once Red Hat offered money and resources, Debian disappeared from the system. Now it's Red Hat's turn to disappear."

An OLPC employee responded thusly:

"OLPC is not taking Microsoft’s money, and we are not being assisted in any way technically by the company. Bruce also claims that “original OLPC prototypes ran Debian […] OLPC XO prototypes never officially ran Debian."

(It should be obvious that both people can be correct - Bruce may have seen the hardware run Debian, and Ivan may be right that it was never officially supported: what is clear is that I can't find any evidence that the Debian project was officially involved in the OLPC project)

Is it right to impugn a project as being fiscally motivated, rather than motivated by the project goals, especially when the project is being run by a non-profit, when there is no evidence of money being involved? There is also no evidence that RedHat is somehow being pushed out; their status within the project has not changed (as far as the public is aware) recently.