Jo Shields has been kind enough to provide an Ubuntu (9.04) remix without Mono apps.
This is done by simply removing (without replacing in anyway) the offending packages.
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?
While I think the effort is pretty much worthless, since it doesn’t really solve any problem, it’s a nice thought from Jo and I welcome it.
I should also say Jo is a little bit disappointed by our secret plot to not talk about that, so I thought I could blog about it.
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.
You can download the ISO’s from the PirateBay [32-bit][64-bit].
Also, since it’s doubtful the project will be mantained in the future, I suggest any willing taker to contact Jo at his blog http://www2.apebox.org/
Summer makes me feel so lazy 
[Source: Mono-nono]
i do not really understand why people are anti-mono. its slow, but isn’t java also slow? and why isn’t there any anti-java movement?
please tell me why people are against mono. i do not understand it currently.
@koen,
To understand the Mono debate and why Java isn’t an issue, you first have to ask the following question:
Is “X Technology” a contributing factor to “Y Corporation” ’s unethical platform monopoly remaining entrenched?
Two flavors of that question:
1) “X Technology” = Mono and “Y Corporation” = MS
2) “X Technology” = Java and “Y Corporation” = Oracle
ahha… now i finally get it
I personally don’t like Mono that much, but that only has a strict technical reason behind it. I don’t really understand why Mono is “bad” in an ethical sense.
[...] upon users, a prominent proponent of Mono has created the opposite of Bloatnux. This received some blog coverage and now this article, but it only came after Mono proponents had been begging for coverage and even [...]
A simplified version of what’s happening seems to be like this.
Microsoft won’t license but instead promised not to sue .NET implementations as long as you can prove you only implement the minimum of standard and only for as long as MS owns the patents.
Then promptly proceeded to sell the patents in secret to patent trolls – thus voiding the promise – but sold them to open source supporters by accident. We were lucky.
Mono supporters say that we have nothing to fear despite the well informed Novell paying $40, 000, 000 to avoid getting sued.
I might be confusing Mono with Moonlight there but the point is that there’s nothing clear on the matter MS refuses to clarify and mono supporters insist us we ignore patents exist altogether.