Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution. - Ubuntu ; Moshe Goldfarb wrote: > You like self inflicted pain. > You must, *after all you are using Linux.... If using Linux is painful, why do you use it? Oh, that's right, you don't; you just lie about using it. -- ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 135

Thread: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

  1. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > You like self inflicted pain.
    > You must, *after all you are using Linux....


    If using Linux is painful, why do you use it? Oh, that's right, you don't;
    you just lie about using it.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    It's better to burn out than it is to rust.


  2. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.

  3. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.


  4. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  5. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  6. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  7. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    "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.


  8. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.

  9. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.

  10. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  11. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.

  12. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  13. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    "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.


  14. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    "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




  15. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    >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

  16. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    "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.


  17. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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.

  18. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    "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.


  19. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

  20. Re: Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

    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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast