[OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners - Slackware

This is a discussion on [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners - Slackware ; These days, there are two kinds of Linux runners. Thanks to the corporate-sponsored yuppy geeks at KDE/Gnome/freedesktop.org and the distros that support those Windows-clone user-interfaces, There are the true Linux runners, who want to learn Linux and to share their ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

  1. [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    These days, there are two kinds of Linux runners. Thanks to the
    corporate-sponsored yuppy geeks at KDE/Gnome/freedesktop.org and
    the distros that support those Windows-clone user-interfaces,

    There are the true Linux runners, who want to learn Linux and to
    share their knowledge with others and/or write-maintain the free,
    open-source software that makes Linux possible.

    And there are the false Linux runners who simply want a
    free operating system and free technical support, who
    don't care about learning Linux and don't have any intention
    of doing their fair share of the work needed to maintain
    Linux. Or of donating to the developers and maintainers of
    the software they use.

    They just want to watch videos and listen to music and shop
    and play video games and engage in mindless chatter with IM
    and IRC and on web forums, etc.

    The false Linux runners are destroying Linux, which is precisely
    why the corporations have put 10's of millions of dollars into
    KDE and the like.

    They know the couch potatos won't take the time to learn Linux
    from the command line (note that I am not talking about Linux
    without X, which I use) and they won't learn to type because
    they need one hand free for their beer, cigarettes, junkfood,
    cellphone, or whatever else they are consuming while they click
    and point with the other hand.

    The corporations really want that other hand free to consume...

    And they really _don't_ want people to learn how to run computers.

    Once most of the people running Linux are ignorant couch potatos who think
    that KDE (etc.) and Linux are the same thing, the game is over. The
    software will become non-free and non-open source.

    They've already tried, remember:

    http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445

    But there wasn't a high enough percentage of couch potato, false
    Linux runners around to allow them to pull it off.

    If we don't do something about this situation, if we don't drop KDE (etc.)
    like the radioactively hot potatoes they are, you can kiss Linux good-bye.

    Or prepare to become, literally, outlaws.

    No, KDE (etc.) are not nice ways to introduce people from the Mac/Windows
    world to Linux. They are traps deliberately set and baited by huge corporations
    who hate free and open source software and people who really understand computers.
    And they especially hate computers they can't access at will. Which they cannot
    on Linux OSes that don't run KDE (etc.).

    Yes. I know that every blabbermouthed idiot on the Linux groups going to reply to
    this. Sorry. But don't blame me. If it wasn't for KDE (etc.) none of these
    lazy, thieving couch potatoes would be running Linux.

    If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.

    Tom


    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  2. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    Tom Newton :
    >
    > The false Linux runners are destroying Linux, which is precisely
    > why the corporations have put 10's of millions of dollars into
    > KDE and the like.


    Ah, the free market speaks!

    --
    Early to bed and early to rise makes a man a helluva big nuisance.

    www.websterscafe.com

  3. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:25:03 +0000, Handover Phist wrote:

    > Tom Newton :


    > Ah, the free market speaks!


    I know it is the weekend but don't you have something better to do than
    read insane people's posts?

    Richard James
    --
    FYI I am insane

  4. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, Handover Phist wrote:
    > Tom Newton :
    >>
    >> The false Linux runners are destroying Linux, which is precisely
    >> why the corporations have put 10's of millions of dollars into
    >> KDE and the like.

    >
    > Ah, the free market speaks!
    >


    I see that you don't want to address any of the issues that I raised.

    I'm not surprised. Supporters of the KDE technocracy don't like having
    their positions questioned.

    There's nothing "free" about the market supported by the corporations.

    And we do not have to reply when this non-free market speaks.

    Thanks for taking your hand off your dick long enough to type your
    juvenile response.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  5. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, Richard James wrote:
    > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:25:03 +0000, Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    >> Tom Newton :

    >
    >> Ah, the free market speaks!

    >
    > I know it is the weekend but don't you have something better to do than
    > read insane people's posts?


    His idiotic response was made for the same reason that yours was:

    He and you don't like having KDE questioned.

    Do you realize how transparent your motives are? Apparently not.

    All that eye-candy and junk food (in your mouse free hand) has
    muddled your brains.

    Tom


    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  6. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    Richard James :
    > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:25:03 +0000, Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    >> Tom Newton :

    >
    >> Ah, the free market speaks!

    >
    > I know it is the weekend but don't you have something better to do than
    > read insane people's posts?
    >
    > Richard James


    Not at the moment. Hell, if you're reading usenet all you're doing is
    reading insane peoples posts anyways!

    --
    Gardeners do it in raised beds.

    www.websterscafe.com

  7. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    Tom Newton wrote, presumably in a lightning flash of self analysis:

    > ...engage in mindless chatter with IM and IRC and on web forums,
    > etc...


    At last you're fulfilling your destiny, being an iconoclastic bigot,
    with a paranoid delusion about GUI's on more than newsgroup at a time.

    Two Ravens
    "Tom Newton surely the William Topaz McGonagall of
    alt.os.linux.slackware, and apparently comp.os.linx.misc. and
    comp.os.linuxsetup as well!"

  8. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:01:28 -0800, Tom Newton wrote:

    > Once most of the people running Linux are ignorant couch potatos who
    > think that KDE (etc.) and Linux are the same thing, the game is over.
    > The software will become non-free and non-open source.
    >
    > They've already tried, remember:
    >
    > http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445
    >
    > But there wasn't a high enough percentage of couch potato, false Linux
    > runners around to allow them to pull it off.
    >
    > If we don't do something about this situation, if we don't drop KDE
    > (etc.) like the radioactively hot potatoes they are, you can kiss Linux
    > good-bye.


    My problem with this isn't your logic. This might have been a good
    argument 10 years ago. But events have argued just the opposite. There
    just is not a burgeoning market for non-free linux software. Beer
    drinking, smoking, masturbating subgenii notwithstanding.

  9. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:

    > If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.


    The only gibbering is yours. Single minded zealots like yourself only
    obscure the real advantage of linunx... choice. I prefer the command line.
    I use it and the keyboard whenever possible. But, I also sell online and
    use photo utililies available on KDE. Gimp is not a CLI utility.
    KDE's Kuickshow is brilliant for previewing pics. Quanta is great for doing
    html. If you want to limit yourself to such a myopic use of the computer, be
    my guest. But, to come here spouting such nonsense makes you look like a
    blithering idiot.

    nb

  10. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:

    [[blather deleted]]

    It's a goddamn computer running a specific goddamn OS - period.

    Get a life, any life, borrow one, buy one if you have to, but for goddamn
    pity sake, get a life.

    ken



  11. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, No_One wrote:
    > On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:
    > [[blather deleted]]
    > It's a goddamn computer running a specific goddamn OS - period.
    >



    > Get a life, any life, borrow one, buy one if you have to, but for goddamn
    > pity sake, get a life.
    > ken



    >
    >

    --
    William Hunt, Portland Oregon USA

  12. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, Ed LaBonte wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:01:28 -0800, Tom Newton wrote:
    >
    >> Once most of the people running Linux are ignorant couch potatos who
    >> think that KDE (etc.) and Linux are the same thing, the game is over.
    >> The software will become non-free and non-open source.
    >>
    >> They've already tried, remember:
    >>
    >> http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=116445
    >>
    >> But there wasn't a high enough percentage of couch potato, false Linux
    >> runners around to allow them to pull it off.
    >>
    >> If we don't do something about this situation, if we don't drop KDE
    >> (etc.) like the radioactively hot potatoes they are, you can kiss Linux
    >> good-bye.

    >
    > My problem with this isn't your logic. This might have been a good
    > argument 10 years ago. But events have argued just the opposite. There
    > just is not a burgeoning market for non-free linux software. Beer
    > drinking, smoking, masturbating subgenii notwithstanding.



    Well, just don't lump all the Slackware users in with him.
    He does not speak for us.

    -RW

  13. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    Handover Phist wrote:

    > Richard James :
    >> I know it is the weekend but don't you have something better to do than
    >> read insane people's posts?
    >>
    >> Richard James

    >
    > Not at the moment. Hell, if you're reading usenet all you're doing is
    > reading insane peoples posts anyways!
    >


    Besides, you can do it with one hand, a glass of wine in the other.

    --
    Old Man

    "Swagger isn't courage." Lee Iacocca

  14. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-09, notbob wrote:
    > On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:
    >
    >> If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.

    >
    > The only gibbering is yours. Single minded zealots like yourself only
    > obscure the real advantage of linunx... choice.


    That is simply not true. I am saying that we have the choice of becoming
    dependent on KDE (etc.) or actually learning Linux.

    > I prefer the command line.
    > I use it and the keyboard whenever possible. But, I also sell online and
    > use photo utililies available on KDE.


    There are plenty of "photo utilities" that are not dependent on KDE, and
    the ones that come with it can probably be used as standalone apps. Many
    of their apps can, like Kstars.

    > Gimp is not a CLI utility.


    Sure it is. I can bring it up by entering "gimp &" on the command line (CLI).

    Just like I bring up firefox by entering "firefox &" on the CLI.

    Someone running Linux from the CLI can use any independent graphical application
    they want to use. Only X and a window manager are necessary for that, not
    KDE (etc.).

    > KDE's Kuickshow is brilliant for previewing pics.


    I'm sure it is. So what? Can you use it without KDE? Aren't there other
    similar apps? Yes. Lots.

    > Quanta is great for doing html.


    So are other apps. Lots of them. And once again: Do you need KDE to run
    that app?

    > If you want to limit yourself to such a myopic use of the computer, be
    > my guest.


    I am not limited in any way. There is absolutely nothing you can do that
    I can't do.

    Including running most of the apps that come with the KDE package.

    Nor do understand why you think I am.

    If you actually do....

    > But, to come here spouting such nonsense makes you look like a
    > blithering idiot.


    Actually, you are the one who looks like either an ignorant person or a liar.

    KDE is simply not necessary to run Linux.

    Though you either believe it is or are pretending to.

    If we assume that you actually believe it, then you are clearly lying about
    being able to run Linux from the CLI.

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  15. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners



    I've been doing some research on the Web.
    Apparently, *All* KDE applications can be run without KDE if
    you have the KDE libs installed.

    Here's a slackware-based distro that puts that fact to good use:

    http://www.pcbypaul.com/absolute/

    On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-09, notbob wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:
    >>

    Tom

    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  16. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-10, Tom Newton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-10, Chris Cox wrote:



    > misunderstanding what I said, or pretending to.
    >
    > So what's going on? Are you just out of your depth? I see in
    > your headers that you are using Thunderbird, primarily a
    > web browser, for your newsreader, which is hardly the choice
    > of a Linux/Unix expert.


    Show me the facts. You're always harping about fact and truth. Show me
    where Thunderbird is primarily a web browser.



    >
    > I am *NOT* a "guru". Not even close.


    Year to date, that's you're one accruate statement. It's the forty first day
    of this new year, so I guess we can expect another accurate statement around
    the last week of March.

    Can hardly wait.

    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks for replying,
    >
    > Tom
    >


    ken


    -------------
    41 days until Tom makes another accurate statement

  17. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, No_One wrote:

    >> I am *NOT* a "guru". Not even close.

    >
    > Year to date, that's you're one accruate statement. It's the forty first day
    > of this new year, so I guess we can expect another accurate statement around
    > the last week of March.



    hahahahahaha, I think you expect wwwaaaaayyyyyy too much :P


    --
    Cheers
    Res

    mysql> update auth set Framed-IP-Address='127.0.0.127' where user= 'troll';

  18. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    Tom Newton wrote:
    >I've been doing some research on the Web. Apparently, *All* KDE
    >applications can be run without KDE if you have the KDE libs installed.


    What are you saying? That it's ok to run K apps as long as you're not
    running KDE?

    -Beej


  19. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    On 2008-02-11, Beej Jorgensen wrote:
    > Tom Newton wrote:
    >>I've been doing some research on the Web. Apparently, *All* KDE
    >>applications can be run without KDE if you have the KDE libs installed.

    >
    > What are you saying? That it's ok to run K apps as long as you're not
    > running KDE?


    It's okay to run anything you want. Obviously.

    But those of us who know Linux rather than knowing KDE, generally
    prefer to use independent applications.

    Doesn't matter if they are also used in a collection of apps like
    KDE or not.

    Why would it?


    Tom


    --
    calhobbit (at)
    gmail [DOT] com

  20. Re: [OT] Two Kinds of Linux Runners

    In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc,
    Tom Newton didnst hastily scribble thusly:
    > On 2008-02-09, notbob wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-09, Tom Newton wrote:
    >>
    >>> If I can ignore their malicious gibbering, so can you.

    >>
    >> The only gibbering is yours. Single minded zealots like yourself only
    >> obscure the real advantage of linunx... choice.


    > That is simply not true. I am saying that we have the choice of becoming
    > dependent on KDE (etc.) or actually learning Linux.


    Rubbish.
    The two have never been mutually exclusive.
    There is no "Business conspiracy" to turn kde users into mindless drones.
    And how can you become "dependent" on kde when kde apps work OUTSIDE the
    environment?

    >> I prefer the command line.
    >> I use it and the keyboard whenever possible. But, I also sell online and
    >> use photo utililies available on KDE.


    > There are plenty of "photo utilities" that are not dependent on KDE,


    So?
    It's just a desktop environment? You know, something that sits on top of a
    window manager doing things the window manager can't or shouldn't do?

    Things that make the computing experience much more pleasurable?

    Or are you saying we should all prostate ourselve before the altar of linux,
    thrashing ourselves with birch branches whilst chanting Hail Linuses?

    > and
    > the ones that come with it can probably be used as standalone apps. Many
    > of their apps can, like Kstars.


    You said only this weekend that you'd "conducted some research" and
    concluded that ALL kde apps can run without KDE. Make your mind up.

    >> Gimp is not a CLI utility.


    > Sure it is.


    HAHAHA!
    Bull****.
    GUI!="started by clicking something"
    GUI=="Functions by clicking things"
    Or are you now claiming that you can use all gimp functions by passing
    command line options?

    > I can bring it up by entering "gimp &" on the command line (CLI).


    You can do that with EVERY application in KDE/Gnome/X. So what?
    If the use of the program does not involve manually typing in commands and
    data, it is not a CLI app.

    > Just like I bring up firefox by entering "firefox &" on the CLI.


    So firefox isn't GUI either?

    > Someone running Linux from the CLI can use any independent graphical application
    > they want to use. Only X and a window manager are necessary for that, not
    > KDE (etc.).


    So... If I were to type firefox now...
    ridcully> firefox

    (firefox-bin:8859): Gtk-WARNING **: cannot open display:

    Well will you look at that...
    No, you have to be in a SHELL in a terminal window in X (or manually set
    your x authority and DISPLAY) in order to start a GUI app from the command
    line.

    You... You DO use the virtual consoles on F1-F6... Don't you?
    No?
    And you call yourself a linux user?!

    >> KDE's Kuickshow is brilliant for previewing pics.


    > I'm sure it is. So what? Can you use it without KDE? Aren't there other
    > similar apps? Yes. Lots.


    >> Quanta is great for doing html.


    > So are other apps. Lots of them. And once again: Do you need KDE to run
    > that app?


    >> If you want to limit yourself to such a myopic use of the computer, be
    >> my guest.


    > I am not limited in any way. There is absolutely nothing you can do that
    > I can't do.


    Tried cutting an image from one app and pasting it into another?
    Without manually saving the intervening temp file?

    > Including running most of the apps that come with the KDE package.


    ALL!

    >> But, to come here spouting such nonsense makes you look like a
    >> blithering idiot.


    > Actually, you are the one who looks like either an ignorant person or a liar.



    Nope... It's you.
    your whole "KDE is evil and wants to destroy linux" schpiel is utterly
    infantile.

    > KDE is simply not necessary to run Linux.


    tcsh is not necessary to run linux.
    Even BASH is not necessary to run linux (if your distro packager decided on
    a different default shell)
    X is certainly not necessary to run linux.


    So what?
    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast