[News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux - Linux ; Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote: > On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > > >> It's the Big Lie. > > Right.... > > As in LIEnix.... > Why are you sush a bitch? Why do you use ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux

  1. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu isriddled with bugs

    Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >
    >> It's the Big Lie.

    >
    > Right....
    >
    > As in LIEnix....
    >

    Why are you sush a bitch?

    Why do you use an OS you obviously hate?


    --
    Rick

  2. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    Hadron wrote:
    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >>>> RHES for servers.
    >>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>
    >>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?

    >> That depends on the workplace.
    >>
    >>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.

    >> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>
    >>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.

    >> You missed it. Happened years ago.

    >
    > You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But it
    > isn't for Rexx.


    Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years. Do you comprehend some?
    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >
    >> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >> RHES for servers.

    >
    > Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    > hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >
    > Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?


    That depends on the workplace.

    > It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.


    Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.

    >
    > Let us know when it happens, Rex.


    You missed it. Happened years ago.

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    Rick writes:

    > On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>
    >>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >>> RHES for servers.

    >>
    >> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>
    >> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?

    >
    > That depends on the workplace.
    >
    >> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.

    >
    > Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >
    >>
    >> Let us know when it happens, Rex.

    >
    > You missed it. Happened years ago.


    You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But it
    isn't for Rexx.

  5. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    On 2008-05-29, Rex Ballard wrote:
    > On May 28, 3:16 am, Roy Schestowitz
    > wrote:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Switching to Linux which distro to use, Ubuntu?



    This is FUNNY.

    >
    > The big problem with all of the Debian based distributions is the lack
    > of LSB 3.0 compatibility. Many software vendors have adopted the
    > LSB-3.0 standard as a reliable way to distribute software packages.
    > Some of the REQUIRED elements include Red Hat Package Manager (RPM),


    People run Debian to GET AWAY from crap like rpm.

    > standard support for gnome AND qt, and support for Motif API
    > compatible libraries.


    Motif? Are you kidding? I thought we finally killed that abomination.

    Put a fork in it. It should be done.

    >
    >
    > When you are looking at high-end 3rd party commercial software, such


    Silly little things like RPM, QT, GNOME and Motif are IRRELEVANT.

    > as Lotus Notes 8, DB2, Oracle, Rational tools, and other desktop and
    > server applications, you need a stable environment and a predictable
    > target framework configuration.


    ....which is why any enterprise grade software will STAY AWAY from things
    like the LSB and instead only certify for complete configurations. The
    LSB doesn't mean anything to me as "high-end 3rd party commercial software"
    user. Infact, I find Debian based distributions less troublesome in this
    regard.

    >
    > This doesn't mean that you have to exclude Debian features, or that
    > you have to give up the GNOME desktop, but you need to have the
    > standard framework required by these high end applications, which
    > often means accepting "non-GNU" components as part of the
    > configuration.
    >
    > I really love the look and feel of KDE, but if I want to install
    > commercial applications, it's a real challenge to do that on the
    > Ubuntu desktop.
    >
    > It is possible to bring Ubuntu up to LSB 3.0 compatibility, but the
    > end-users shouldn't have to do that by themselves.
    >
    > For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    > Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    > RHES for servers.
    >


    Utter nonsense.

    --
    Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
    attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
    the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
    events not in their control.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  6. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu is riddled with bugs (was: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux)

    On 2008-05-29, DFS wrote:
    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> DFS? Oh, yeah. That's the same idiot that said:
    >>
    >> "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't be posting anything right
    >> now." DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004

    >
    > * and there wouldn't be a Google, or an AMD, or an nVidia, or a Dell
    >
    > * and Linux/OSS would be much worse than it is (if that's possible)... no
    > Windows and MS Office to steal from.
    >
    > * and the PC software and hardware markets would be fragmented and products
    > more costly


    When PC software and hardware markets were "fragmented" the products
    were actually less costly. The industry was sorely in need in some
    better interoperability standards but the Microsoft hegemony didn't
    really help that (beyond running everyone else out of town).

    >
    > * and many cola "advocates" would never have had the lucrative Windows
    > careers they've enjoyed
    >
    > * and several billionaires and many, many millionaires wouldn't have been
    > created
    >
    > * and many $billions would not have been donated to developing nations
    >
    > * etc etc...
    >
    > MS has been a HUGE net gain for the world, and you anti-success cola lusers


    Nope. I have personally experienced the "hell" that you claim that the
    "pre-hegemony" computing world was. It was GREAT. You could get products
    that weren't crap. They were pretty cheap too. It wasn't taken as an
    article of faith that you needed to have a professional grade word
    processor just to trade simple documents with other people.

    > are living in fantasy-land if you think Linux will suddenly (or mid-term, or
    > long-term) displace it.


    Your rant is old news. Been there, did that. It used to be DOS that was
    the upstart. The universe is not static, even when there are crushing
    monopolies to worry about.

    --
    Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
    attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
    the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
    events not in their control.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  7. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>
    >> The big problem with all of the Debian based distributions is the lack
    >> of LSB 3.0 compatibility. Many software vendors have adopted the
    >> LSB-3.0 standard as a reliable way to distribute software packages.
    >> Some of the REQUIRED elements include Red Hat Package Manager (RPM),

    >
    > People run Debian to GET AWAY from crap like rpm.


    Exactly. apt is so sweet. When I used to use Redhat/Fedora, about
    the first thing I'd do is install apt4rpm, which of course is not as
    elegant as having it there on "the ground floor"...


  8. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu is riddled with bugs (was: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux)

    On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:28:31 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-05-29, DFS wrote:
    >> William Poaster wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS? Oh, yeah. That's the same idiot that said:
    >>>
    >>> "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't be posting anything right
    >>> now." DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    >>> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004

    >>
    >> * and there wouldn't be a Google, or an AMD, or an nVidia, or a Dell
    >>
    >> * and Linux/OSS would be much worse than it is (if that's possible)...
    >> no Windows and MS Office to steal from.
    >>
    >> * and the PC software and hardware markets would be fragmented and
    >> products more costly


    What utter f#cking bull****. Even I know people were posting to message
    boards using computers before M$ even *thought* about the net.
    IIRC in the early 1990's Gates thought it was a passing fad. Although
    Windows 3.11 had some sort of dialup, it wasn't till '95 that it was taken
    seriously. OS/2, Macs & other OSs had it, Gates was cought flatfooted.

    > When PC software and hardware markets were "fragmented" the products were
    > actually less costly. The industry was sorely in need in some better
    > interoperability standards but the Microsoft hegemony didn't really help
    > that (beyond running everyone else out of town).
    >
    >
    >> * and many cola "advocates" would never have had the lucrative Windows
    >> careers they've enjoyed
    >>
    >> * and several billionaires and many, many millionaires wouldn't have
    >> been created
    >>
    >> * and many $billions would not have been donated to developing nations
    >>
    >> * etc etc...
    >>
    >> MS has been a HUGE net gain for the world, and you anti-success cola
    >> lusers

    >
    > Nope. I have personally experienced the "hell" that you claim that the
    > "pre-hegemony" computing world was. It was GREAT. You could get products
    > that weren't crap. They were pretty cheap too. It wasn't taken as an
    > article of faith that you needed to have a professional grade word
    > processor just to trade simple documents with other people.
    >
    >> are living in fantasy-land if you think Linux will suddenly (or
    >> mid-term, or long-term) displace it.

    >
    > Your rant is old news. Been there, did that. It used to be DOS that was
    > the upstart. The universe is not static, even when there are crushing
    > monopolies to worry about.


    All DooFu$ *can* do is rant.

    --
    Mandriva 2008.1 64-bit.
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.

  9. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    On 2008-05-29, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-05-29, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>> On May 28, 3:16 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> Switching to Linux which distro to use, Ubuntu?

    >>
    >>
    >> This is FUNNY.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> The big problem with all of the Debian based distributions is the lack
    >>> of LSB 3.0 compatibility. Many software vendors have adopted the
    >>> LSB-3.0 standard as a reliable way to distribute software packages.
    >>> Some of the REQUIRED elements include Red Hat Package Manager (RPM),

    >>
    >> People run Debian to GET AWAY from crap like rpm.

    >
    > No they don't. They run Debian because it's free and "stable" and is a


    Yes they do...

    I am a good example of that myself.

    Boy RPM was annoying.

    [deletia]
    >>
    >>> standard support for gnome AND qt, and support for Motif API
    >>> compatible libraries.

    >>
    >> Motif? Are you kidding? I thought we finally killed that abomination.

    >
    > Horrible isn't it?


    I don't know if it's Motif so much as the lame apps that were built with it.

    In those days there seemed to be no serious interest in GUI apps in Unix.

    The apps and the desktop reflected this.

    [deletia]

    --
    If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
    it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
    MacOS X on a DELL! / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    >Hadron quacked:
    >>
    >> No they don't. They run Debian because


    Dumb****. There can be multiple reasons Debian is run. Your snotty
    "No they don't" was incorrect and unappreciated, asshole.


  11. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:15:50 +0200
    :
    > Rick writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >>>> RHES for servers.
    >>>
    >>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>
    >>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?

    >>
    >> That depends on the workplace.
    >>
    >>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.

    >>
    >> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.

    >>
    >> You missed it. Happened years ago.

    >
    > You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But it
    > isn't for Rexx.


    And until one can double-click on any installable file
    on one's desktop and install software with at most a root
    password prompt, it never will be.

    That's what Windows offers. Granted, its security gives IT
    people nightmares, but one can't beat it for convenience --
    at least, that's what Microsoft says anyway.

    Personally, I think Linux is more consistent, once one figures
    out how to do what one needs.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  12. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 08:23:10 -0500
    :
    > On 2008-05-29, Rex Ballard wrote:
    >> On May 28, 3:16 am, Roy Schestowitz
    >> wrote:
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Switching to Linux which distro to use, Ubuntu?

    >
    >
    > This is FUNNY.
    >
    >>
    >> The big problem with all of the Debian based distributions is the lack
    >> of LSB 3.0 compatibility. Many software vendors have adopted the
    >> LSB-3.0 standard as a reliable way to distribute software packages.
    >> Some of the REQUIRED elements include Red Hat Package Manager (RPM),

    >
    > People run Debian to GET AWAY from crap like rpm.


    Certainly I did...then I went to Gentoo to get away from what
    was probably a short-term dependency goofup on Debian's part,
    plus the fact that Gentoo builds everything in what at the time
    I considered had to be consistent.

    I'm wrong, mostly because of the "underlying package
    upgrade oopsie" phenom, but it's not a fatal shortcoming
    of Gentoo...or even limited to Gentoo. (Gentoo's workaround?
    revdep-rebuild.)

    >
    >> standard support for gnome AND qt, and support for Motif API
    >> compatible libraries.

    >
    > Motif? Are you kidding? I thought we finally killed that abomination.
    >
    > Put a fork in it. It should be done.


    Xaw's still around, too. Bear also in mind copyright is
    good for death+70; this may seem irrelevant but I strongly
    suspect Motif will be good (FSVO, anyway) for more than
    a century and a half.

    By then we'll probably all be using quantum computer headsets
    or something. ;-)

    >
    >>
    >>
    >> When you are looking at high-end 3rd party commercial software, such

    >
    > Silly little things like RPM, QT, GNOME and Motif are IRRELEVANT.


    Of course. The only relevant thing is Win32. ;-) If one
    believes the Winvocates, anyway.

    >
    >> as Lotus Notes 8, DB2, Oracle, Rational tools, and other desktop and
    >> server applications, you need a stable environment and a predictable
    >> target framework configuration.

    >
    > ...which is why any enterprise grade software will STAY AWAY from things
    > like the LSB and instead only certify for complete configurations. The
    > LSB doesn't mean anything to me as "high-end 3rd party commercial software"
    > user. Infact, I find Debian based distributions less troublesome in this
    > regard.


    Presumably, a fair amount of custom enterprise software would
    provide source anyway.

    >
    >>
    >> This doesn't mean that you have to exclude Debian features, or that
    >> you have to give up the GNOME desktop, but you need to have the
    >> standard framework required by these high end applications, which
    >> often means accepting "non-GNU" components as part of the
    >> configuration.
    >>
    >> I really love the look and feel of KDE, but if I want to install
    >> commercial applications, it's a real challenge to do that on the
    >> Ubuntu desktop.
    >>
    >> It is possible to bring Ubuntu up to LSB 3.0 compatibility, but the
    >> end-users shouldn't have to do that by themselves.
    >>
    >> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >> RHES for servers.
    >>

    >
    > Utter nonsense.
    >


    Maybe...but it looks like to me as just another expression
    of the haves versus the have-nots. Granted, this is an
    oversimplification anyway, and once code gets out, it's
    hard to put back.

    Motif got out awhile back. ;-) This despite the fact that
    Motif was a cost add-on option back in the early 90's, if
    I'm not totally mistaken.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  13. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu is riddled with bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 03:02:33 -0400
    :
    > Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It's the Big Lie.

    >>
    >> Right....
    >>
    >> As in LIEnix....
    >>

    > Why are you sush a bitch?
    >
    > Why do you use an OS you obviously hate?
    >


    "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
    Presumably Moshe wants to ensure that Microsoft, having
    innovated from behind so often, doesn't miss anything
    it could innovate from Linux. (Apparently this includes
    touchscreens. Yeah, there's an innovative notion! Too bad
    Linux has had touchscreen support since last millennium.)

    And of course if Moshe finds any minor molehills, he can
    trump them up into major mountains -- if anyone's paying
    attention, which in COLA we're probably not, except
    maybe for me, since I happen to have a strange sense of
    humor... ;-)

    Oh, the horror.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Woman? What woman?"
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  14. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 03:03:26 -0400
    :
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES or
    >>>>> RHES for servers.
    >>>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?
    >>> That depends on the workplace.
    >>>
    >>>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.
    >>> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>>
    >>>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.
    >>> You missed it. Happened years ago.

    >>
    >> You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But it
    >> isn't for Rexx.

    >
    > Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years. Do you comprehend some?


    It depends on the workplaces, methinks. Some
    enthusiastically include Linux in their server rooms;
    others surreptitiously introduce it as the occasional
    SAMBA server, web server etc. Still others might flip
    their desktops -- I do, though I might only use Windows
    once a month now. ($EMPLOYER likes to have us change
    passwords once a quarter for security.)

    Personally, I find Linux very workable. Others might
    prefer Microsoft Windows, since it's the devil they know.
    Still others: MacOSX. (We have a Mac or two running
    around here.)

    Unfortunately for Microsoft, Windows is a mutating devil
    (you'd think they'd know this as they're the one's
    injecting the mutagenic compounds!), and people are
    starting to notice that Vista's not quite the same (and
    not nearly as reliable) as that old ploughhorse, Windows
    XP....which hasn't been put out to the glue factory quite
    yet, despite Linux's growing acceptance (at least in the
    server realm) and Vista's attempts at market domination --
    attempts which aren't going nearly as well as Microsoft
    might have hoped.

    But then, not every workplace can trade in a ploughhorse for
    a 200+ mph Indy/NASCAR racer/tractor/tank. ;-)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    "Woman? What woman?"
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  15. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu isriddled with bugs

    On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:54:59 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe, Goldfarb.
    > wrote
    > on Wed, 28 May 2008 22:23:40 -0400
    > :
    >> On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It's the Big Lie.

    >>
    >> Right....
    >>
    >> As in LIEnix....
    >>
    >>

    > There is the possibility we're doing just that, in believing that Linux
    > and/or Linux-based solutions will ever be superior to[*] the
    > Microsoft-pushed variants.
    >
    > However, I suspect Linux will go down fighting.


    ... and does Linux have to go down at all?

    >
    >[*] in terms of a generic concept; of course Linux the kernel is
    > superior to the Windows Win32 crap. However, that doesn't mean success
    > any more than a powerful turbine engine will ever be placed in a car
    > that can be sold to the casual motorist.


    NO, it doesn't mean success. If fact it seems just the opposite.
    Microsoft seems to have been able to crush the previous superior
    offerings, except Apple.


    --
    Rick

  16. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:22:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >
    > wrote
    > on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:15:50 +0200
    > :
    >> Rick writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES
    >>>>> or RHES for servers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?
    >>>
    >>> That depends on the workplace.
    >>>
    >>>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.
    >>>
    >>> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.
    >>>
    >>> You missed it. Happened years ago.

    >>
    >> You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But
    >> it isn't for Rexx.

    >
    > And until one can double-click on any installable file on one's desktop
    > and install software with at most a root password prompt, it never will
    > be.


    Why? Just because that's the way it is done in other systems? Big deal.

    >
    > That's what Windows offers.


    So what? If many of us wanted "what Windows offers" we'd have stayed with
    Windows.

    > Granted, its security gives IT people
    > nightmares, but one can't beat it for convenience -- at least, that's
    > what Microsoft says anyway.
    >
    > Personally, I think Linux is more consistent, once one figures out how
    > to do what one needs.


    No one is born knowing how to use a computer or an operating system.

    --
    Rick

  17. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu is riddled with bugs

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 18:28:38 -0500
    <-umdnfwvTrC7oaLVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@supernews.com>:
    > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:54:59 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe, Goldfarb.
    >> wrote
    >> on Wed, 28 May 2008 22:23:40 -0400
    >> :
    >>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> It's the Big Lie.
    >>>
    >>> Right....
    >>>
    >>> As in LIEnix....
    >>>
    >>>

    >> There is the possibility we're doing just that, in believing that Linux
    >> and/or Linux-based solutions will ever be superior to[*] the
    >> Microsoft-pushed variants.
    >>
    >> However, I suspect Linux will go down fighting.

    >
    > .. and does Linux have to go down at all?


    That depends on a number of factors.

    [1] How well we Linux enthusiasts can promote Linux,
    and promote Linux distros, especially to developers.
    Personally, I like Linux, but not everyone will see
    it as the greatest thing since computers.

    [2] How well Microsoft can promote *their* latest
    offerings. Windows 7 is out there, and apparently
    a fair number are waiting for it. (Maybe it's because
    they're disappointed with Vista?)

    [3] How well Microsoft can suppress Linux innovations so
    that Microsoft "innovations" don't look quite so bogus.
    Touchscreen? I've found a FAQ on touchscreens dated 2000,
    thank you; Microsoft "innovates" yet again. Maybe they'll
    be able to sell their notion, but it's certainly not
    that avant-garde.

    [4] How well Microsoft can intimidate OEMs, play with
    margins, or otherwise interfere with the free market.

    [5] How well the DoJ and the EUC can keep Microsoft
    from interfering with the free market. So far, I'm
    not hopeful.

    [6] Where technology mutates. For example, the current
    crop of mobile phones look almost like small computers,
    and might be more powerful than the Cray YM-P in its day.
    Certainly the computer market is fragmenting more every
    day, and I for one do not care for the acronym soup
    in the mobile market.

    The good news: Linux-developed software runs easily
    on POSIX-compliant stuff, if the developer's done his
    homework, and offerings such as Android, if Google gets
    *its* act together, will standardize/commoditize the
    mobile market -- which should bring down prices and make a
    general mess of things. But then, what's the point of an
    EDGE network that only gets 9600 or so baud, when WiFi's
    faster than DSL?

    [7] External factors. As a set of very crude,
    extreme examples:

    - if we get hit by a large meteorite or al Qaeda
    decides to successfully release a highly mutagenic
    Ebola-type virus that kills everyone, I don't think
    we'll have to worry about whether Microsoft or Linux
    wins. ;-)

    - A coming Great Depression (assuming such is imminent)
    will change the playing field considerably.

    - A brand new discovery on energy such as a cheap easy
    way to do fusion (the current method is expensive but
    shows some promise) or a new innovation in battery
    tech will alter the playing field, maybe significantly,
    especially if it can be adapted to the private car (or
    even a private spacecraft a la the Jetsons).

    - Dragging carboniferous and iron asteroids carefully
    onto the Earth for the purposes of steelmaking will
    definitely affect markets, prices, etc.

    - A relatively peaceful (if rather unlikely!) invasion
    of aliens from, say, the planet Iji[*] in large FTL
    starcruisers would upend human civilization no end.
    (A war with said aliens would be even more upsetting,
    of course.)

    Makes life interesting.

    >
    >>
    >>[*] in terms of a generic concept; of course Linux the kernel is
    >> superior to the Windows Win32 crap. However, that doesn't mean success
    >> any more than a powerful turbine engine will ever be placed in a car
    >> that can be sold to the casual motorist.

    >
    > NO, it doesn't mean success. If fact it seems just the opposite.
    > Microsoft seems to have been able to crush the previous superior
    > offerings, except Apple.
    >


    They do that very well, yes. It's a pity.
    [*] _Chanur Saga_, home planet of the mahendosat, who did just
    that to a feudal society of hani [very briefly, clannish cats]
    on Annurn, circling Ahr.

    C. J. Cherryh did not go into much detail as to what exactly
    happened during first contact in the saga. Perhaps there's
    a prequel in the offing.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
    void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  18. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick

    wrote
    on Thu, 29 May 2008 18:30:57 -0500
    <-umdnf8vTrAsoaLVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@supernews.com>:
    > On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:22:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:15:50 +0200
    >> :
    >>> Rick writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES
    >>>>>> or RHES for servers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>>>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?
    >>>>
    >>>> That depends on the workplace.
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.
    >>>>
    >>>> You missed it. Happened years ago.
    >>>
    >>> You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But
    >>> it isn't for Rexx.

    >>
    >> And until one can double-click on any installable file on one's desktop
    >> and install software with at most a root password prompt, it never will
    >> be.

    >
    > Why? Just because that's the way it is done in other systems? Big deal.


    It is if that's what one is used to. Still, you have a point.
    Personally, I'm a touch typist, so I don't know if I really care. ;-)

    >
    >>
    >> That's what Windows offers.

    >
    > So what? If many of us wanted "what Windows offers" we'd have
    > stayed with Windows.


    True.

    >
    >> Granted, its security gives IT people
    >> nightmares, but one can't beat it for convenience -- at least, that's
    >> what Microsoft says anyway.
    >>
    >> Personally, I think Linux is more consistent, once one figures out how
    >> to do what one needs.

    >
    > No one is born knowing how to use a computer or an operating system.
    >


    No, but the way things are going many of us are exposed to Windows (or
    programs running thereon, such as Jumpstart) at a very early age.

    OLPC *might* sidestep that, if we're lucky.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  19. Re: [News] Ubuntu Not Necessarily the Best of GNU/Linux Ubuntu isriddled with bugs

    "Rick" stated in post
    HLudnew51ankY6PVnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@supernews.com on 5/29/08 12:02 AM:

    > Moshe, Goldfarb. wrote:
    >> On Thu, 29 May 2008 01:53:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> It's the Big Lie.

    >>
    >> Right....
    >>
    >> As in LIEnix....
    >>

    > Why are you sush a bitch?
    >
    > Why do you use an OS you obviously hate?
    >

    You are really angry these days... everything OK?


    --
    If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
    Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)






  20. Re: Ubuntu needs LSB 3.x compatibility

    On 2008-05-30, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
    >
    > wrote
    > on Thu, 29 May 2008 18:30:57 -0500
    ><-umdnf8vTrAsoaLVnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@supernews.com>:
    >> On Thu, 29 May 2008 10:22:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Thu, 29 May 2008 14:15:50 +0200
    >>> :
    >>>> Rick writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:48:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Rex Ballard wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> For this reason, I prefer a commercially supported standards based
    >>>>>>> Linux such as SUSE SLED or Red Hat's RHED for the desktop, and SLES
    >>>>>>> or RHES for servers.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Cool. You should make the switch from Windows at work and Linux at
    >>>>>> hobby-time, to Linux at work and Windows at hobby-time.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Linux is ready for the workplace, isn't it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That depends on the workplace.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> It's only 2008 - 17 years is enough I would think.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux has been ready for some workplaces for years.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Let us know when it happens, Rex.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You missed it. Happened years ago.
    >>>>
    >>>> You missed it. Again. *YOU* said its ready for *some* workplaces. But
    >>>> it isn't for Rexx.
    >>>
    >>> And until one can double-click on any installable file on one's desktop
    >>> and install software with at most a root password prompt, it never will
    >>> be.

    >>
    >> Why? Just because that's the way it is done in other systems? Big deal.

    >
    > It is if that's what one is used to. Still, you have a point.
    > Personally, I'm a touch typist, so I don't know if I really care. ;-)


    A few years ago, gentoo offered a GUI package management system... what
    was its name now..... oh dear! I'm getting old.... I used it and it
    seemed OK, but the gentoo toolkit is far too versatile and easy to use,
    so everyone ignored it.

    >> No one is born knowing how to use a computer or an operating system.
    >>

    >
    > No, but the way things are going many of us are exposed to Windows (or
    > programs running thereon, such as Jumpstart) at a very early age.


    Hmmm... how early is "early"? I'd never even _seen_ a computer until I
    was fifteen back in 1975. We got to share a Wang computer with 3 other
    schools. Before that we learned to program in FORTRAN on a punch card
    machine.

    I taught myself to use MSDOS and Apple Mac. When windows came out I
    installed it myself and would _still_ be a loyal Windows user if it
    weren't for the appalling mess of Windows95.

    > OLPC *might* sidestep that, if we're lucky.


    Kids today... they have it too easy... 8-) They get their own computer
    whereas we had one to share between 3 schools, only for those doing
    computers as a subject.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

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