On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>
>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.

One of the wonderful things about open source is that you're not denied
the opportunity to make the OS work the way you need it to just because
someone else judges your modification a "l33t hyck".

>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>
> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.

The freedom to experiment with code, build on it, and release it for
others to build upon is what allowed minix to grow into Ubuntu and has
led to the existence of some 20,000 open-source applications to go with
it. The very thing that you claim to be "bad" is what's allowed Linux to
survive and grow where Netscape, OS/2, DRDOS, BeOS, and many others were
murdered by Microsoft's underhanded tactics.

> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
> of Linux and its advancement.

You FUD against Linux and actively work to disrupt the Linux advocacy
group, so please don't pretend to be oh-so-concerned with Linux's
health.

NoStop wrote:

> And you know what's good for the advancement of Linux? Does that include
> agreeing with Mr. Soap Dish whenever he posts something that slams Linux?
> Does that including bitching and griping about how FOSS software doesn't
> meet YOUR standards, while contributing fukall to it's development? Does
> that include attacking those who try and advocate for Linux by constantly
> writing them off as some kind of COLA crowd? Does that include bitching
> about there being too many distros out there and there should be only one
> omnipotent distro, ala Windoze? I'm really curious ... just how do you
> advance Linux? Seriously?

You haven't been paying attention. Quack is hard at work on STALINux, "The
Distro That Owns YOU."
--
Regards,
[tv]

You can drive a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.

Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>
>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>
>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>> of Linux and its advancement.
>
> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>
>
>


To me it is good for general Linux development in that you get more
people trying different avenues at the same time. So not only dose it
help in the development directly it also keep many more interested in
the workings.
So "Dud" linux failed. So what? Maybe there was code in it that did that
other distros can adopt or on the other hand they can learn a lesson
from the ones that fail and not waste their time going down that route
because someone else did.
The more that work on a project can only help.
caver1

Hadron wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Get rid of the millions of distros. Concentrate on the top 10% and get
>>> this **** working. The fixes can then trickle on to the lamer distros
>>> like DreamDump or whatever it's called.
>> Hey, dumbass. How do you propose to "get rid" of the millions of
>> distros?
>
> LOL. It really is like talking to a brick wall. Almost as dumb as
> Spike1. Firstly dont encourage the new ones, secondly dont advertise the
> existing ones.
>
> The point is quite clear - more and more distros are NOT a good
> idea. Get the existing ones working.
>
>> "When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>> this stuff." -- Quack
>>
>> LOL, you're such an abject moron.
>
> Your point is? I know we can not ban them. "Get rid of" in the context
> should be perfectly clear - stop encouraging and making out these things
> are good "choice".
>
> Just because you can not house train your dog, it doesn't mean you want
> to go stepping in its crap every day. Or maybe you like that. Wouldn't
> surprise me.



Just because you build great houses doesn't mean that your kids
shouldn't try to do better.
caver1

Snit wrote:
> "Rick" stated in post
> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>
>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>
>>
> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
> both...
>
>



Not everyone wants both.
caver1

"caver1" stated in post
47f8ff79$0$30700$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 9:51 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" stated in post
>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>
>>>
>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>> both...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Not everyone wants both.
> caver1

So offer both as a default and let the few folks who want to reduce their
productivity do so... and, of course. let people set things up for special
needs. No argument here.


--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

caver1 writes:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" stated in post
>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>
>>>
>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>> both...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Not everyone wants both.
> caver1

Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
suggested.

Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.

caver1 writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Tattoo Vampire writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get rid of the millions of distros. Concentrate on the top 10% and get
>>>> this **** working. The fixes can then trickle on to the lamer distros
>>>> like DreamDump or whatever it's called.
>>> Hey, dumbass. How do you propose to "get rid" of the millions of
>>> distros?
>>
>> LOL. It really is like talking to a brick wall. Almost as dumb as
>> Spike1. Firstly dont encourage the new ones, secondly dont advertise the
>> existing ones.
>>
>> The point is quite clear - more and more distros are NOT a good
>> idea. Get the existing ones working.
>>
>>> "When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>> this stuff." -- Quack
>>>
>>> LOL, you're such an abject moron.
>>
>> Your point is? I know we can not ban them. "Get rid of" in the context
>> should be perfectly clear - stop encouraging and making out these things
>> are good "choice".
>>
>> Just because you can not house train your dog, it doesn't mean you want
>> to go stepping in its crap every day. Or maybe you like that. Wouldn't
>> surprise me.
>
>
>
> Just because you build great houses doesn't mean that your kids
> shouldn't try to do better.
> caver1

We are not talking great houses. We are talking broken fragmented and
buggy as hell distros - even the main ones. You know - the reasons
Linux only has about 0.7% of the desktop share.

Hadron wrote:
> caver1 writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>> both...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not everyone wants both.
>> caver1
>
> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
> suggested.
>
> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.



Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
minority from the majority.
Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do it
that way.
What is fartured about Ubuntu?
caver1

caver1 writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 writes:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>>> both...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>> caver1
>>
>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>> suggested.
>>
>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>
>
>
> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
> minority from the majority.

No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.

> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.

Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
minorities are.

> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
> it that way.

See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
another way. But lets aim for the majority.

> What is fartured about Ubuntu?

No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.

Hadron wrote:
> caver1 writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> caver1 writes:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>>>> both...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>>> caver1
>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>
>>
>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>> minority from the majority.
>
> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>
>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>
> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
> minorities are.
>
>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>> it that way.
>
> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>
>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>
> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.


I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
stopping anyone else from the same rights.
If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
caver1

"caver1" stated in post
47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> caver1 writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not
>>>>>>>> ban
>>>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that
>>>>>>>> "banning"
>>>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or
>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual
>>>>>> design
>>>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that
>>>>>> offers
>>>>>> both...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>>>> caver1
>>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>>> minority from the majority.
>>
>> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
>> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
>> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>>
>>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>>
>> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
>> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
>> minorities are.
>>
>>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>>> it that way.
>>
>> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
>> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>>
>>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>>
>> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.
>
>
> I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
> But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
> Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
> I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
> the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
> against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
> others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
> And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
> Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
> But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
> over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
> stopping anyone else from the same rights.
> If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
> fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
> caver1

I think it is a shame that the best answer to how a user can get a distro
from a group that understands both organization, look, and consistency is
for the user to become an expert in each area *and* an expert in how to put
a pro-level Linux distro together and then roll their own.

The development efforts of Linux are fractured - so while there are experts
in each area (or at least people who show they understand each area well)
they are not all working together. This will change: eventually a distro
will pull all of those talents together... Ubuntu seems to be trying (though
they have big holes in their skill set currently).


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.

"caver1" stated in post
47f919e5$0$22863$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 11:43 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 writes:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>>> both...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>> caver1
>>
>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>> suggested.
>>
>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>
>
>
> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
> minority from the majority.
> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do it
> that way.
> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
> caver1

Here are menus from some Ubuntu programs:



Should the item to terminate be called "Quit" or "Exit"?
(Or "Close Window")
What should its hot key be?
Should it even have a hot key?

There are no consistent answers to any of those questions. And then there
is the question of consistent use of copy and paste:



It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. Ubuntu,
while relatively consistent compared to other distros, still has a long way
to go to get things right - even there, where it is strong.

As a side note, look at the text selection on that copy-paste movie... why
does text move as it is being selected? Just not done well.


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France

>Hadron puked:
>>
>> We are talking broken fragmented and
>> buggy as hell distros - even the main ones. You know - the reasons
>> Linux only has about 0.7% of the desktop share.

Funny, I hadn't noticed that PCLOS is"broken fragmented and buggy as
hell", "true Linux advocate" Hardon Quack.

You're just a snotty POS, Quack. Go suck Billy's wang.

--

"We are talking broken fragmented and buggy as hell distros - even the
main ones. You know - the reasons Linux only has about 0.7% of the
desktop share." - "True Linux Advocate" Hadron Quark

"Hadron" stated in post
ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:

> caver1 writes:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>> both...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not everyone wants both.
>> caver1
>
> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
> suggested.
>
> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.

COLA Linux Advocates.


--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Snit writes:

> "Hadron" stated in post
> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>
>> caver1 writes:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual design
>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>>> both...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>> caver1
>>
>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>> suggested.
>>
>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>
> COLA Linux Advocates.

The mind boggles as to "caver1"s mindset where he thinks it better to
keep a broken, fractured distro because a minority "might" want
it. Huh?!?!?!? I mean, I have heard some stupid things in my life but
this kind of mental thought process leaves me wondering just who these
people are.

"Hadron" stated in post
ftbdeo$2ro$2@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 1:56 PM:

> Snit writes:
>
>> "Hadron" stated in post
>> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>>
>>> caver1 writes:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not ban
>>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that "banning"
>>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or may
>>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual
>>>>> design
>>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that offers
>>>>> both...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>>> caver1
>>>
>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>
>> COLA Linux Advocates.
>
> The mind boggles as to "caver1"s mindset where he thinks it better to
> keep a broken, fractured distro because a minority "might" want
> it. Huh?!?!?!? I mean, I have heard some stupid things in my life but
> this kind of mental thought process leaves me wondering just who these
> people are.

The debate is not even about *how* to organize... just *if* it is better to
be organized in a distro, or have well done organization.

The mind boggles.


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.

Snit wrote:
> "caver1" stated in post
> 47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> caver1 writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> caver1 writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rick" stated in post
>>>>>>> SbOdnaFSgI5DRWXanZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d@supernews.com on 4/6/08 7:06 AM:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hadron did eloquently scribble:
>>>>>>>>>>> No I'm not. Whatever gave you that idea? I am saying you do not build
>>>>>>>>>>> an entire distro around some l33t hyck.
>>>>>>>>>> And how do you STOP him from doing that if he so wishes if you can't
>>>>>>>>>> ban the modification of GPL software?
>>>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick head that we KNOW we can not
>>>>>>>>> ban
>>>>>>>>> this stuff. This is WHY its all such a mess. I also agree that
>>>>>>>>> "banning"
>>>>>>>>> per se is not a good thing. However, and I know you will struggle with
>>>>>>>>> this, it doesn't make it a good thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's like talking to a brick wall. It's not all about what we may or
>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>> not do. It's about whether it's a good idea or not for the general good
>>>>>>>>> of Linux and its advancement.
>>>>>>>> When will you get it through your thick skull? ... killing distors won't
>>>>>>>> guarantee any more resources for any other distro?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if distro developers were to work together they could combine their
>>>>>>> strengths... such as the strength of PCLOS's organization and visual
>>>>>>> design
>>>>>>> with Ubuntu's less-fractured UI. Right now there is no distro that
>>>>>>> offers
>>>>>>> both...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not everyone wants both.
>>>>>> caver1
>>>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>>>
>>>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>>>> minority from the majority.
>>> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
>>> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
>>> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>>>
>>>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>>> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
>>> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
>>> minorities are.
>>>
>>>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>>>> it that way.
>>> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
>>> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>>>
>>>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>>> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.
>>
>> I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
>> But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
>> Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
>> I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
>> the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
>> against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
>> others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
>> And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
>> Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
>> But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
>> over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
>> stopping anyone else from the same rights.
>> If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
>> fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
>> caver1
>
> I think it is a shame that the best answer to how a user can get a distro
> from a group that understands both organization, look, and consistency is
> for the user to become an expert in each area *and* an expert in how to put
> a pro-level Linux distro together and then roll their own.
>
> The development efforts of Linux are fractured - so while there are experts
> in each area (or at least people who show they understand each area well)
> they are not all working together. This will change: eventually a distro
> will pull all of those talents together... Ubuntu seems to be trying (though
> they have big holes in their skill set currently).
>
>


As I said it is still improving. Tell us where they are lacking.
caver1

chrisv wrote:
>> Hadron puked:
>>> We are talking broken fragmented and
>>> buggy as hell distros - even the main ones. You know - the reasons
>>> Linux only has about 0.7% of the desktop share.
>
> Funny, I hadn't noticed that PCLOS is"broken fragmented and buggy as
> hell", "true Linux advocate" Hardon Quack.
>
> You're just a snotty POS, Quack. Go suck Billy's wang.
>



So far I have tried PcLinux 2008 KDE. don.t like it. too many steps. But
then again Hardon you still haven't said which one you like.
caver1