[CS-FSLUG] Oracle, OO.org and LibreOffice

[Cia Watson]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Cia Watson wrote:
> 
> > I thought I read somewhere during my research that Go-oo might tie
> > into Mono? Do you know whether that's the case or not? If it does, I
> > can guarantee you that Redhat wouldn't go there. (no pun intended...
> > haha)
> 
> Well, a major sponsor for Go-oo is Novell, but I don't know if we can
> say they actually control it; "dominate" may be more correct. My
> impression is this is simply the result of circumstances. Sun had the
> original, and I rather doubt something as massive as OO.org would not
> have arisen without some big pockets behind it, regardless of motive.
> Thus, I tend to see Novell dominance as just changing dance partners.
> 
> This naturally means Mono shows up, but I understand it is merely a
> module which need not even be installed for Go-oo to work. However,
> last time I checked, Red Hat still has Mono in the repositories.
> (Since I hate it for being such a horrific resource hog, I try to
> avoid it.) The big sparkle for Go-oo is that you can do far more with
> it, as all the patches rejected by Sun (now Oracle) are given a
> chance to work, but they are all modules, not dependencies.
> 
> As always, it's possible I am completely mistaken on some of this.

I believe you're correct, mono is probably in the RH and/or Fedora
repo's, but  no mono app's are part of any default installation. On
Fedora they use gnote instead of Tomboy and Shotwell in place of
F-Spot.  So if mono isn't a dependency for Go-oo then it probably
wouldn't be an issue. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.