Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot - Linux

This is a discussion on Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot - Linux ; chrisv writes: > chrisv wrote: > >>Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually >>written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost. > > But I stand by my conclusion that the reason Quack asked 'How is > Ubuntu "better" ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

  1. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv writes:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    >>written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.

    >
    > But I stand by my conclusion that the reason Quack asked 'How is
    > Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in Ubuntu
    > group Debian is "rock solid"', was just to be a snot-spewing asshole.
    >
    > Amazing, really, that the troll is willing to make a complete jackass
    > of himself, just so he can spew some snot.
    >


    I can ask it again if you like. Since you didn't answer. BTW, what is
    it with you and your snot fixation?

  2. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    The Ghost In The Machine writes:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:23:02 -0600
    > :
    >>>Hadron trolled:
    >>>>
    >>>> chrisv writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>Hadron puked:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>>>>>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    >>>>> dumbsh*t.
    >>>>
    >>>> Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime",

    >>
    >> Prove it, asshole.
    >>
    >> In any case, what some people think is the most important attribute is
    >> irrelevant to one person's (Ben, in this case) opinion that "Ubuntu is
    >> better".
    >>
    >>>> then yes actually.

    >>
    >> Yes what? I didn't ask you a question.
    >>
    >> Do you mean "yes, Hadron Quack is a stupid fscking troll who never
    >> tires of making an asshole of himself"?
    >>
    >>>>They can all run the same shagging applications.

    >>
    >> So what. dumbsh*t? That doesn't change the fact that there's other
    >> measures of "goodness", besides stability, that might cause someone to
    >> believe that one distro is better than the other. User friendliness,
    >> for example, is more important to some people than is ultimate
    >> stability, especially if an insignificant amount of stability loss is
    >> the only trade-off for a large gain in user-friendliness.
    >>
    >> Is the above not quite obvious, troll? Are you getting tired of
    >> getting slapped-around now, troll?
    >>
    >>>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>>which is a highly personal issue.

    >>
    >> Why, then, did you ask 'How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when
    >> according to the sycophants in Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid"',
    >> when appears now that you might understand exactly when Ben was
    >> talking about!
    >>
    >> Just to be a snot-spewing asshole, I would say.
    >>
    >>>(snip more trolls)

    >>

    >
    > I think you're slightly confused. I am The Ghost In
    > The Machine. Chevron '>>' refers to me.
    > Chevron '>>>' refers to Hadron. For some reason you
    > were naughty and deleted my attribution line. :-)
    >
    > Not sure if Debian or Ubuntu is better, at this point; I'm
    > familiar with Debian (switched from it to Gentoo many moons
    > ago) and have experimented with Ubuntu. I might redownload
    > Debian if I can figure out where to get an ISO; apparently
    > they've switched to some sort of torrent-like system.


    So what? The torrent will download the ISO for you - and quickly. The
    best bet it to get a netinst install.

    http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/

    Frankly I think Debian 4 is a crock. I moved to testing so that I could
    (more easily) have the latest bug fixes and HW support required.

  3. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:30:27 -0600
    :
    > Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    > written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.
    >


    Accepted. These things happen. :-)

    >
    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>Ghost, not Quack, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>>which is a highly personal issue.

    >
    > I agree. The big distros all have sufficient stability so that it
    > does not matter, for most users, if one the "most stable".
    >
    > I should have realized my mistake in attributing that line to Quack,
    > as it is entirely free of snot.
    >
    >>>(snip more trolls)

    >
    > They weren't really trolls, to my knowledge. I didn't read the rest
    > of the post, thinking that Quack was rambling.
    >
    > Sorry again, Ghost!
    >


    I do tend to ramble at that...hopefully it makes sense to
    somebody. ;-) The problem I have is, one concept leads
    to another, and then to another, and pretty soon I'm in
    La-La land when we started out in Wackyville and/or Ground
    Zero... :-)

    (Note: Wackyland was featured in 1938 in a WB short where
    Porky was pursuing a dodo bird. Dunno if WB bothered
    to copyright the term Wackyland (as opposed to _Porky
    in Wackyland_, the title of the work). It's a pain.
    Ground zero, fortunately (??), is a generic term for any
    location attacked by a sufficiently powerful bomb.

    OK...I think that counts as a side jaunt.... :-) )

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net -- and now on to something completely different
    Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
    (1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    > Not sure if Debian or Ubuntu is better, at this point; I'm
    > familiar with Debian (switched from it to Gentoo many moons
    > ago) and have experimented with Ubuntu. I might redownload
    > Debian if I can figure out where to get an ISO; apparently
    > they've switched to some sort of torrent-like system.


    I actually installed an Ubuntu server a while ago at a client
    site because it was the only ISO I had handy and it was something
    of an emergency. Without the slick Gnome desktop on it, it looks
    like just another Debian server to me.

    To me, the question of which is 'better' (Debian or Ubuntu) is
    like asking which is better: cake or cake with extra frosting.
    Depends on if you like frosting or not.

    Thad


  5. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On 2007-12-07, The Ghost In The Machine claimed:

    > Not sure if Debian or Ubuntu is better, at this point; I'm
    > familiar with Debian (switched from it to Gentoo many moons
    > ago) and have experimented with Ubuntu. I might redownload
    > Debian if I can figure out where to get an ISO; apparently
    > they've switched to some sort of torrent-like system.


    http://www.debian.org/CD/http-ftp/

    --
    I accelerate for cats.

  6. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    thad05 wrote:

    > I actually installed an Ubuntu server a while ago at a client
    > site because it was the only ISO I had handy and it was something
    > of an emergency. Without the slick Gnome desktop on it, it looks
    > like just another Debian server to me.
    >
    > To me, the question of which is 'better' (Debian or Ubuntu) is
    > like asking which is better: cake or cake with extra frosting.
    > Depends on if you like frosting or not.


    I like frosting. 8) I use kubuntu 6.06 LTS for several servers that I
    maintain. (Yeah, I know the pros will look down on me for having X and
    KDE running on a server. Tough hop. 8)


  7. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv wrote:
    >
    > I like frosting. 8) I use kubuntu 6.06 LTS for several servers that I
    > maintain. (Yeah, I know the pros will look down on me for having X and
    > KDE running on a server. Tough hop. 8)


    I often install X on servers, not because I plan to run an entire
    desktop, but sometimes it is nice to run a graphical performance
    monitor or some clicky admit tool and be able to redirect to your
    remote management workstation.

    Which reminds me of a funny story. A couple of years ago I was
    doing some on-site linux consulting work for big client. I was
    working mostly at the command prompt, but needed to look something
    up in google, so I typed in 'mozilla &' rather than click my
    way through the menus. After a bit of long wait the browser
    came up. It seemed a bit slow.

    After a while I realized what I had done. I had a window open to
    my colo server, and I had accidently typed the mozilla command
    there. X11 forwarding over SSH was turned on by default in the
    version of RedHat I was using. The packets dutifully tunneled
    their way across the Internet and back through the company's
    firewall to my desktop. Talk about ease of use... I've found
    remote desktop software is often a pain in the butt on other
    platforms, but on Linux it works even when you don't expect it.

    Thad



  8. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On Friday 07 Dec 2007 6:43 pm, chrisv wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    >>written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.

    >
    > But I stand by my conclusion that the reason Quack asked 'How is
    > Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in Ubuntu
    > group Debian is "rock solid"', was just to be a snot-spewing asshole.


    He doesn't know what "rock-solid" means. As i've said before:-
    Debian is based on "tried & tested" software. That means that the "stable"
    Debian does not include the "latest and greatest" in its standard distribution.
    The current stable distribution is release 4.0. Conversely, this means that
    Debian is valued for its stability. It is a favoured choice of discerning
    sysadmins, particularly for servers.


    My company's servers and critical apps all run on Debian Linux. While Debian is
    not the latest, it is absolutely stable. Debian is rock solid, 120% reliable
    for us at all times, as are the updates.

    Robin Miller, Prentice Hall PTR
    http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...041942,00.html


    If you're not the bleeding edge type, Debian is rock solid in more than one
    aspect.

    http://wiki.tcl.tk/8930


    Everything is true, but never forget : Debian is ROCK-solid. Such cannot be
    said about Ubuntu...

    http://groups.google.com/group/linux...a53a9fee1ebd55

    More quotes for "debian is rock solid" can be found in Google. Um...maybe
    they're all sycophants posting in the Ubuntu group too! ;-)

    > Amazing, really, that the troll is willing to make a complete jackass
    > of himself, just so he can spew some snot.


    If he likes being laughed at, that's his problem.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3