We don't like Ubuntu-only stuff

ubuntu....

by TheRob on: Sep 26 2011

Score 50%

TheRob
Home

...I'm so fkn fed up with it I don't even have
the words to describe how I feel.

This mark shutleworth guy is really pissing on
the whole linux community... and just because he
can. Pretty soon he's prolly attendng the
bilderberg meeting too. Couldn't somebody just
go and do the guy a favor by stealing all his
money and save us all the trouble.

"life sucks, get a f***ing helmet alright!" -Denis Leary
Reply to this

Re: ubuntu....

by user81304 on: Sep 30 2011

Score 63%

user81304

"Pretty soon he's prolly attendng the bilderberg meeting too."

You'd probably be taken more seriously if you knew how to spell "probably", "attending" and "Bilderberg".

Re: Re: ubuntu....

by Digit on: Oct 15 2011

Score 50%

... by those who place a higher importance on form than content.

... the rest of us look for content over form, and can listen to the message just fine, when someone abbreviates, doesnt use capitals, uses netspeak, has dislexia etc. :P

i pity the fools who close their minds to those who wont/dont/cant adhere to the rules formal education set down for them.

stay free. go gpl. ;)
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: ubuntu....

by user81304 on: Nov 8 2011

Score 50%

user81304

Content is meaningless if it can't be accessed. For it to be indexed and accessed by search engines it needs to be spelled correctly. If you place such low importance on things that you write on the Internet, be my guest and spell in novel and creative ways that nobody will ever find and read.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ubuntu....

by vovan on: Dec 13 2011

Score 70%

vovan

Your form is perfect, yet your content is useless.
How come?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ubuntu....

by peterlcollins on: Dec 14 2011

Score 50%

peterlcollin s
Home

... but without form the content cannot be understood.
Yes, bad spelling need not hide the content, but it must be 'close enuff' to fall within a commonly accepted or understood range. Some software can cope with 'alternative spelling' almost as well as a human can, but until that is universal, please do help search engines (and humans) by using 'the most commonly accepted' set, eh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: ubuntu....

by Fri13 on: Feb 5 2012

Score 50%

What you are saying, is that everyone should just shut their mouth if they can not speak or write perfectly....

You do have a point, but same time you don't understand what you are saying.

It is important to use a correct words (terms, definitions etc) but it is even more important that you are willing to learn and express your own opinions, toughs, feelings and ideas without someone coming "HEY, YOU DIDN'T SPELL THAT WORD CORRECTLY SO GET THE ***** OUT OF HERE!"

It is just nitpicking that if someone types/says few words wrong. Totally different thing is if someone use wrong words/definitions/terms. Like someone says "Memory" instead "HDD/SDD" while speaking where to store data. Or if someone mentions "heart" while meaning liver.

But if someone types wrong correct words... it is not serious.

The context is more important than the skill to write or speak correctly, especially when using a foreign language.

Those who speaks their own language, does understand what a tourist or other foreign person means when just use correct words. The sentence order or some missing words does not (usually) cause problems.

Like if someone come and says "I help need car gas the road"... It is easy to understand that person needs to get gas for his car on the road.
Instead nitpicking about words order or missing words, the person could just help.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

I use...

by Padster on: Sep 26 2011

Score 63%

Padster
editor
Home

Fedora 15, Mint 11, and Arch.
I think my favourite is Arch though, it's just a pain to set up.

101010
Reply to this

Re: I use...

by skull-y on: Sep 26 2011

Score 63%

skull-y

The first time with Arch is hard but the second is much easier xD

Re: Re: I use...

by Padster on: Sep 26 2011

Score 63%

Padster
editor
Home

I know what you mean, it does get easier. But to set up a fresh system is really annoying, even if you've done it before ^^

101010
Reply to this

Re: I use...

by TheRob on: Sep 26 2011

Score 36%

TheRob
Home

ur an idiot

"life sucks, get a f***ing helmet alright!" -Denis Leary
Reply to this

Re: Re: I use...

by Padster on: Sep 26 2011

Score 63%

Padster
editor
Home

Wow, I haven't heard you call me an idiot in so long I almost forgot! Thanks a lot for reminding me.

101010
Reply to this

me too

by marcaemus on: Sep 26 2011

Score 50%

Linux From Scratch svn-20101131. Good art works on any distro.

... when all the worlds collide.
Reply to this

It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by user81304 on: Sep 30 2011

Score 70%

user81304

Ubuntu uses .deb packages, the native package used by Debian Linux, because it is a customized version of Debian. All you need to get the .tar.gz files is open the .deb package with Archive Manager and extract it. The .deb package also contains some other files that tell the Synaptic Package Manager where to install the program and how to set up the icons in the Applications Menu. Debian packages can thus be installed on any other Linux distribution. In fact, .deb packages are created from generic .tar.gz archives, not the other way around. Your complaint is ill-founded.

I'm running Ubuntu, but may eventually migrate to Debian. Although Ubuntu is very easy to install and relatively easy for the novice Linux user to configure, and Canonical sends out frequent updates and patches, the short support cycle — even of the "Long Term Support" versions — is troublesome. I think in terms of 10+ years of support for an operating system. In fact, I still have a couple of machines running Windows 98, because I still run software designed for Windows 95/98 and some DOS programs that are well over 20 years old.

Re: It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by peterlcollins on: Oct 5 2011

Score 50%

peterlcollin s
Home

I (almost) completely agree. Still maintain an 'old version' MS machine, don't like short support cycles, and so on. Haven't got as far as planning a shift to Debian, however.

Re: It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by Digit on: Oct 15 2011

Score 38%

i'm not really digging your "ubuntu is debian" sentiment, but totally agree with you on the longevity of software. i had a flirtation with slackware for that very reason.

stay free. go gpl. ;)
Reply to this

Re: It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by marcaemus on: Oct 29 2011

Score 50%

Trying to install chromium showed that just unpacking a deb isn't gonna work - requires all the correctly versioned libraries from whichever distro and version. Thankfully, a slackpkg worked a treat.

... when all the worlds collide.
Reply to this

Re: It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by anoknusa on: Nov 6 2011

Score 50%

anoknusa

This argument would appear sound, were it not for the fact that Canonical--in their attempts to stand out from the crowd--seems to arbitrarily alter the vanilla Linux filesystem, which remains greatly unchanged in the majority of distros. This necessitates the odd circumstance in which installation instructions contained in the .deb binary are useless on other distros, and packages thus require two sets of installation instructions: one for Ubuntu (and its clones), and one for Linux. Two examples of this: the vanilla KDE user config directory is "~/.kde4;" in the Ubuntu world, this is shortened to simply "~/.kde." Thus, one who wishes to migrate their current desktop across distros must either rename the directory (making it unusable in Ubuntu) or create a bunch of symlinks to correct discrepencies.

Second, I just recently bought a new Thinkpad. While referring to ThinkWiki to try to learn how to tweak things just so, one must notice that several entries offer first instructions on how to do so in Ubuntu, followed thereafter by several notes informing the reader that this differs from how many other prestigious distros handle this. Most of those distros use the same file paths, while Ubuntu's differ. This seems like no big deal; however, listing Ubuntu as the primary distro, and all others as the exceptions to the Ubuntu "rule," gives the latter distro a sort of primacy that can't be earned by mere popularity. In fact, it can probably be conceded that most Ubuntu users aren't going to bother writing Udev rules to configure their trackpoints, as Ubuntu hardly engenders a DIY mindset.

Ubuntu is of course immune to this confusion, and Canonical have managed to get developers offering "Linux" versions of their software to package them in .deb format only, built against the current stable version of Ubuntu. This neither benefits the Linux community as a whole, nor promotes the idea that the Ubuntu devs are taking the former into consideration. Shuttleworth doesn't seem so much interested in promoting Linux as he is in promoting his own brand. This of course says nothing of the quality of Ubuntu as an operating system; indeed, many of us here likely started with Ubuntu, and are grateful for the kid gloves used to teach us the ropes. But eventually many of us found it lacking, and decided to move on--only to find that Canonical had essentially been operating in a manner that only served to hamper those of us intent on learning about Linux. Their desire to remain apart from the crowd--for no reason other than to eventually break out the black ink--is a disservice to us all.

Re: It's Debian, not Ubuntu

by Fri13 on: Feb 5 2012

Score 50%

It is not just so simple to repackage a DEB to other package for most of the times. It works sometimes but it is very dirty hack and cause lots of problems as the software was not compiled specifically for that system where it was repackaged.

Different distributions store files to different paths and has different ways to link files.
Not to mention about different architectures and package system technicality how to track files and many other technical functions.

Even a Canonical has made many changes to Ubuntu so not all Debian packages from Testing work in it.
And when it comes to get a pre-compiled DEB package work with RPM or any other package system distribution, it is same thing as trying to get a Volvo Truck engine to Honda Civic. Very dirty hack.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

nice group idea. it has gotten a little o.t.t.

by Digit on: Oct 15 2011

Score 50%

i've used over 400 distinct .iso of gnu operating systems (or bsd, and a few others dotted around).

i currently have in regular use, Toorox, Gentoo, Crunchbang(Debian/sid), Arch, Slitaz and Slackware.

ubuntu has never been a recommendation of mine. not a serious one anyway. but of course, it crops up all over the place (both vanilla and it's derivatives), pimping its unique ways of doing things, which frankly, i see as a subtle and insidious form of soft lock-in, diminishing people's ease of jumping between distros.

not good.

being pissed on is not good.

i knew ubuntu was dead to me came win7. before that statement gives you ideas, know this; i detest proprietary software, and have a special dislike for microsoft considering what few of their many atrocities i know of, but having said that, i still have to point out to people, that development for win7 vs development for ubuntu 10.10, it was microsoft, not canonical, who come out best when it comes to listening to the user-base. :O this is not some exoneration of proprietary/microsoft/windoze, or some damning of freesoftware/opensource/gnu/linux, this is just because .... well, i was about to say because ubuntu failed, but indeed, like the guy said before, it's because shuttleworth loves to piss on us. lol.

(and the idea of him being invited to bilderberg meetings is a horrendous prospect)

stay free. go gpl. ;)
Reply to this

Re: nice group idea. it has gotten a little o.t.t

by Fri13 on: Feb 5 2012

Score 50%

"i've used over 400 distinct .iso of gnu operating systems (or bsd, and a few others dotted around)."

There isn't over 400 distributions of HURD operating system... Only a few and they don't even work well as HURD isn't working operating system.

GNU would have their own operating system working if Linus would not have started Linux what gathered OS developers around it.

Even that GNU project maintains/develops great system programs, system utilities and many application programs and libraries, they just have failed with HURD operating system and good luck is that we have Linux to take its place.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Re: Re: nice group idea. it has gotten a little o

by Digit on: Feb 8 2012

Score 50%

---"i've used over 400 distinct .iso of gnu operating systems (or bsd, and a few others dotted around)."

--There isn't over 400 distributions of HURD operating system... Only a few and they don't even work well as HURD isn't working operating system.

--GNU would have their own operating system working if Linus would not have started Linux what gathered OS developers around it.

--Even that GNU project maintains/develops great system programs, system utilities and many application programs and libraries, they just have failed with HURD operating system and good luck is that we have Linux to take its place.

i cant tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you really do have such a wacko take of the situation. that^s probably just trolling, but incase it's not, i shall respond.

linus made a kernel, he and some others might call it an opperating system, but i think the majority of us call an opperating system the combination of all the parts of the... operating system. not just the kernel.

it is the GNU opperating system. and the Linux Kernel. and the HURD kernel ~ which itself is broken up into smaller components, including a micro kernel. ... and you get the BSD opperating system, and it uses the BSD kernel.

Linux, or whatever kernel you use, is almost certainly only a very small portion of your complete opperating system.

~ on a side note about the hurd... HURD development continues, and is actually quite useable, though not yet recommended for mission critical or production environment yet. i recently heard they're looking around for a new microkernel to replace mach with. i think i heard someone mention reviving old L4 sources. It's really powerful technology, i can see why it's worth continuing to develop.

just because we so often use the word "linux" as shorthand for GNU|Linux, doesnt really mean the opperating system is called linux, in a strict sense.

to further clarify the point, about gnu or bsd being the name of the opperating system and the words linux and hurd being the kernels, my favorite main distro is gentoo. i could go for gentoo with a hurd, bsd, or linux kernel. or even some others (but lets not confuse things further).
i could do so with all the same stuff to interface with, just a different kernel (and a few compatibility changes). same opperating system install, different kernels.

kernel != opperating system.

they're not synonymous.

... unless you're the unique breed of "kernel developer". ;p

if you want to put this to the test further, try running your "opperating system" without everything but the kernel, and see how well the system opperatates. :P XD ;D

so anyways, when i said gnu, i didnt mean hurd, as you seemed to interpret it. i meant gnu. as in GNU|Linux, AND GNU|HURD, and whatever else is on the go too. it was a conscious decision to use the word gnu alone, because not all distros i had used, used the linux kernel. some used hurd, some used xen, and i think there were even a few that used other stuff too... after about 300 you kinda start to loose track of it all.

i hope that makes sense to you now, you probable jester you. ^_^

p.s.
amen for the freedom to interchange ALL components of our free software opperating systems. ... on that note, oh for more alternatives to gcc and xorg. ;D

stay free. go gpl. ;)
Reply to this

Re: Re: Re: nice group idea. it has gotten a litt

by Fri13 on: Feb 16 2012

Score 38%

Quote:
i cant tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you really do have such a wacko take of the situation. that^s probably just trolling, but incase it's not, i shall respond.

I am dead serious about history and technological facts. People who dont know OS history and OS architectures thinks it is trolling, joking or something else.

Quote:
linus made a kernel, he and some others might call it an opperating system, but i think the majority of us call an opperating system the combination of all the parts of the... operating system. not just the kernel.

Majority does not know technology, they dont even know the OS history. Majority does not even know that Linux is a monolithic kernel. Majority does not even know what is a web browser. It is just plain stupid to say "Majority knows" and keep it as a argument point, while a majority does not have a fainthest idea what operating system by technology way is. They only have a ideas what marketing has given them. Majority idea is what some clever marketing guys invented to sell their product instead competitors and others started to compete with same manner.

Are you one of those who would agree that it is OK if now someone would go and start selling to Amazon Jungle People a car, saying that it is a engine and its parts are rear mirrors, seats, wheels, all of it. And then those AJP would come to modern civilization where people are driving and manufacturing those cars and they say "No, it is not a car, but a engine what you are driving"? Which one would be correct, a manufacturers who would base things to technology history and development, or those who does not have a clue how the technology works?

Right now, majority believes that car is the engine. That people drive a engine and they sit inside a engine and then buy a engine.
While they dont have a idea that the engine is under the hood and that the whole thing is a car.
Now, that is the situation on computer markets. Majority does not know that Linux kernel is a whole operating system. They believe that what they see on screen is the operating system. They believe that the marketing brand is a name of their used operating system.

Quote:
it is the GNU opperating system. and the Linux Kernel. and the HURD kernel ~ which itself is broken up into smaller components, including a micro kernel. ... and you get the BSD opperating system, and it uses the BSD kernel.

There is no GNU operating system. That is a myth... a twisted myth of twisted illusion. There neither is a HURD kernel, that is myth and twisted lie as well. As HURD is not a kernel. It is a whole operating system whats architecture is server-client. If HURD would be a kernel, it first should need to be a monolithic. And if it would be a monolithic kernel, then it would be a operating system. While we have two totally different architectures for operating system, the definition what is what is not same for both. Other has a microkernel, other does not. Other is monolithic (still being modular in binary level) while other is bunch of servers operated by microkernel (modular by architecture and binary level).

Quote:
Linux, or whatever kernel you use, is almost certainly only a very small portion of your complete opperating system.

Linux is not a microkernel. Linux kernel is whole operating system. Not a small portion. Linux would be a small portion of operating system if Linux would be a microkernel like Mach, what is microkernel what is used in HURD operating system.
BSD were a monolithic operating system. It wasn forked to multiple different OS's. Example of FreeBSD is a monolithic operating system same way as is Linux. But the problem what even there is that people mistake the operating system and distribution names as both carries the same names, even that there are multiple distributions from the FreeBSD, like FreeBSD and PC-BSD.

Quote:
just because we so often use the word "linux" as shorthand for GNU|Linux, doesnt really mean the opperating system is called linux, in a strict sense.

Ah, that stupid argument from "Oh it is so hard to say so we just call it as Linux OK?". No, the operating system name is Linux. Linux and Linux kernel does not mean different things. There is one software, a single project what is called as Linux. That is the name of the operating system. When a majority of people are ignorance and lazy to use correct names and definition, it is not a valid argument to use them as fact.
With same argument, we could say that Internet Explorer (IE) is the Internet. Because for majority it was so. They didn't open a IE but they opened internet.
Majority thinks that PC means Windows (or that PC is synonym for personal computer). So it must be so that there is no PC without Windows, right?
Just because majority are ignorant and lazy to know that Internet and WWW are two totaly separate technologies, it does not make those beliefes as facts. Majority does not know that WWW use Internet. And that Internet is just global network and specific network protocols (what operating system handles, like TCP/IP) what other higher level technologies (like WWW, what use application protocols what are not part of the operating system) use.

Quote:
to further clarify the point, about gnu or bsd being the name of the opperating system and the words linux and hurd being the kernels, my favorite main distro is gentoo. i could go for gentoo with a hurd, bsd, or linux kernel. or even some others (but lets not confuse things further).
i could do so with all the same stuff to interface with, just a different kernel (and a few compatibility changes). same opperating system install, different kernels.

You can swap operating system but you need to reboot for that. You can swap your text editor but you can do that on the fly with just copying text from editor to other. Gentoo is just a distribution. It is a collection of software, distributed by specific means by specific goal in mind by group of people for other people. The same software comes "in many packagages". When you install HURD and you add it to your bootloader and you reboot your computer and you select HURD instead Linux, you start your system with different operating system. No, you didn't change kernel (HURD is not kernel but operating system with Server-Client architecture and its microkernel is Mach) but OS. If system software is ported to operating system in use or it is otherwise compatible, you can run your chosen software as nothing has changed. The low level change does not necessery affect at all your higher level software or even your hardware, as long as the OS has support for your hardware and the middleware software.

Quote:
kernel != opperating system.

Wrong

Kernel == Operating System
Microkernel != Kernel
Microkernel != Operating System

Quote:
they're not synonymous.
... unless you're the unique breed of "kernel developer". ;p

Why I should care more what you and majority thinks about technology and history when you are all ignorant?
Should we re-write OS histories and re-invent technologies how operating systems works so they would apply to majority ideas of "operating system" as marketing people want to sell it?

Quote:
if you want to put this to the test further, try running your "opperating system" without everything but the kernel, and see how well the system opperatates. :P XD ;D

The system operates just fine, problem is just that I dont then have programs (and what those programs needs) to solve my problems.
The operating system is not system what you operate. It is a software what operates the hardware and the software. Operating system is between hardware and all other software. It operates both and all. The hardware and other software are responsible to do a different jobs for user and offer a user interfaces for them. Example. A keyboard is not part of your CPU. Your monitor is not part of your RAM. A bash is not part of operating system. A system programs like cp, ls, mv... are not part of bash. A glibc or gcc are not part of operating system. They dont work without operating system. You can always run just the operating system, but you dont do anything with just it. You need always something else to do your work. You need programs, programs needs libraries, programs needs other programs. And piece by piece, you have very complex system what is 50% of hardware and 50% of software. And between them, is software what operates both of them.
You don't do anything with just a microkernel. It is just a part of operating system. But you need the servers (OS servers, not system services) what includes rest of the operating system. Example you can not get GCC, glibc and bash (etc) run with just microkernel like Mach (what is in HURD). Because you dont have filesystems, memory management, process management, network protocols and so on, what are located on servers separated from microkernel for modular structure on architecture level.

You just have false beliefe that "Operating System" is system what YOU operate. That Operating System is a system what you use directly to browse WWW clicking images and URL's, edit text using text editor, changing what music plays by clicking track on playlist.... Those are totally different softwares and involves lots of different kind softwares and hardware to work together making lots of mathematical calculations and all operated by the small specific software - a operating system, like Linux, HURD, Minix, FreeBSD, NT...

Or should I just make a argument with your same logic.... Pull CPU off from its socket on motherboard and try running your "operating system" and see how well the system operates? :-D
By your logic, the CPU is part of your operating system.
And if going even further with your argumental logic, pull a power plug from wall and try running your "operating system" and see how well the system operates? :-D
And lets cut the chase... Lets shutdown the power plant and then try to use that your "operating system" and you see how well the system operates :-D
As by your logic, the power plant is part of your operating system. Without it, your "operating system" does not work. Was it then a powerplant, power plug, CPU or Linux kernel, your "operating system" would cease to work. So they definetely are part of your "operating system".

Operating System is not there to be used, it is there to run other software on the different kind hardware with easy development. That is the only purpose for operating system to exist. Every software and hardware has their purpose to exist. And like web browser is one software among thousands on your computer, as is operating system just one software among those same thousands. They both just have totally different purposes and the other needs the other one, but that one does not need the other (Your computer needs that power plug and it needs power plant, but the power plant does not need your power plug or computer).

Quote:
so anyways, when i said gnu, i didnt mean hurd, as you seemed to interpret it. i meant gnu. as in GNU|Linux, AND GNU|HURD, and whatever else is on the go too. it was a conscious decision to use the word gnu alone, because not all distros i had used, used the linux kernel. some used hurd, some used xen, and i think there were even a few that used other stuff too... after about 300 you kinda start to loose track of it all.

GNU is a project, if you want to talk about GNU's (GNU project own) operating system, it is a HURD. Linux is not part of GNU project.

Quote:
i hope that makes sense to you now, you probable jester you. ^_^

You are just running around propaganda and marketing loops without any sense or logic with computer science and technology what is used to get computer work to solve different problems.

Quote:
p.s.
amen for the freedom to interchange ALL components of our free software opperating systems. ... on that note, oh for more alternatives to gcc and xorg. ;D

The GPL is a great license. GCC is nice compiler. And Xorg (what is not part of GNU project) is nice windowing system.
But do not mistake the ethics of Free Software to technology. Or ideas that "because I need compiler and if I use GCC it means it is part of GNU hence name GNU/" or because if something is licensed with GPL, it would become a member of GNU project....
Computer technology is science. It is pure science how they work by mathematical means. They are pure electronicy science how a signals are used to make a mathematical calculations in binary system. How 1's and 0's, a ON or OFF makes computer work. How a pressing a single key on keyboard generates a signal what is understood to be specific kind and how operating system takes that input and sends that to programs to run different algorithms what returns as input to OS what then sends it as output to other round and after many loops, that single input gets as output to computer screen as a letter, what is group of pixels in specific RGB color codes. And everything happens so quickly, that it is like magick in black box.

GNU/Linux is a fat lie. Saying that Linux (aka Linux kernel) as means else than a monolithic operating system, is a lie.
Freedom can not be build base of fat lie. No one can be free, if their freedom is based to lie. They live in illusion of freedom, as they dont have the truth to make correct choices for their lifes and others lifes.
Protecting a lie, is not protecing a freedom.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

pfuuuu

by ButchZ on: Nov 4 2011

Score 25%