Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
On 2008-04-05, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>> the only annoying thing is that it does not hibernate on my big laptop.
>
> Install XP and VMWare. Strip out everything you don't need from XP.
> Set Zone Alarm so that VMWare (and machines it virtualizes) can talk
> freely, but nothing else on XP can get out.
>
> Then run Ubuntu as a virtual machine and let VMWare and/or XP
> handle the hibernation.
>

That's seriously painful, for no good reason. My system boots in about
a minute.

i
 
Ignoramus14041 wrote:
> On 2008-04-05, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
>> Ignoramus20845 wrote:
>>> the only annoying thing is that it does not hibernate on my big laptop.
>> Install XP and VMWare. Strip out everything you don't need from XP.
>> Set Zone Alarm so that VMWare (and machines it virtualizes) can talk
>> freely, but nothing else on XP can get out.
>>
>> Then run Ubuntu as a virtual machine and let VMWare and/or XP
>> handle the hibernation.
>
> That's seriously painful, for no good reason. My system boots in about
> a minute.

Hey, I wouldn't do it either. But if you gotta have hibernation....

--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
 
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:11:13 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 12:38:21 -0500, mimus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:11:40 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=9926
>>>
>>> Dream Linux, yet another one of the almost 1000+ different versions of
>>> Linux proves itself to be yet another dud.
>>>
>>> Tell me, do they actually test these things before they foist them on the
>>> general populous?
>>>
>>> "One reason I wanted to take a look at DreamLinux 3.0 was it's claim on
>>> their website that they had the easiest tool to install DreamLinux 3.0 to a
>>> USB Key. Well, it is an easy tool.. If it worked.. It didnt work for
>>> me.. But maybe others had better success. Wasn't any problem with the key
>>> as it was brand new and made bootable and upon not working at all in
>>> DreamLinux 3.0 I immediately had no issues placing my favorite Puppy Linux
>>> 3.0.1 on same key.
>>>
>>> Maybe they need to work at this... :) Could just have been me too...."
>>>
>>> It wasn't him.
>>> I just tried it and it tanked on me too.
>>>
>>> So here we have another Linux piece of junk destined for the bitbucket.
>>>
>>> Humor me a little, why can't you Linux loons get together and create a
>>> single distribution that actually works as designed instead of all these
>>> hamstrung distributions that have *issues*.
>>>
>>> Oh, I forgot it's all about choice.
>>>
>>> What good is choice when everything you get to choose from stinks?
>>
>> Ask the reviewer about his "favorite Puppy Linux" . . . .
>
> FWIW Puppy Linux is pretty decent.
> At least it's different from the run of the mill Linux distribution.

Well, that's what I meant, he seems to like it, in direct contradiction to
the OP's putative moral.

--

Usenet: The Biggest and Oldest and Most Powerful Net-Forum of All!
 
On 2008-04-05, Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe that hibernation is being fully redone in 2.6.26 kernel,
>> though I do not know much. It is a turn off for many, but it is just a
>> annoyance to me.
>>
>> i
>
> If you are a business person doing a lot of traveling it is a major PITA.
> FWIW my Thinkpad worked with Hibernation under PCLinuxOS, I *think* it
> worked under Mepis but it did NOT work under Ubuntu last time I tried it.
>> Maybe they have fixed it.

I am not a business person, but I use my laptop on train twice a
day. What saves me is that it boots quickly.

Also, additionally, I use dm-crypt and my entire laptop's data is
encrypted. If a thief could boot this laptop from hibernation, then
the purpose of encryption would be defeated.

It is something that I did not even consider prior to making this
post. Makes me feel bad that I did not think about it.

i
 
On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:17:06 -0500, Rick wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:35:44 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Ignoramus20845 <ignoramus20845@NOSPAM.20845.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-04-05, Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Humor me a little, why can't you Linux loons get together and create
>>>> a single distribution that actually works as designed instead of all
>>>> these hamstrung distributions that have *issues*.
>>>
>>> As far as my own computer use is concerned, ubuntu works and does what
>>> /i want, from a obsolete freebie laptop with 256 mb of ram, and 10"
>>> screen, to big servers with a lot of expensive hardware. the only
>>> annoying thing is that it does not hibernate on my big laptop.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>> Which *immediately* make Linux a no go for many, many people.
>>
>> Get rid of the millions of distros. Concentrate on the top 10% and get
>> this shit working. The fixes can then trickle on to the lamer distros
>> like DreamDump or whatever it's called.
>
> And AGAIN, there is no evidence that killing off distros will increase
> development on any other distro.

What Hadron is saying is that we should deny users the right to modify
GPL software and to release the result for others to use. That does not
sound to me like an open-source lover. Rather, it sounds like someone
who seeks to rip out the very heart of open source.
 
Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> As for Mac, if Microsoft doesn't get it's act together by the time it's
> time for my new system, I just might jump ship.

Jump ship? Sorry, Munch, but OSX won't run on your new Commodore 64.

--
Regards,
[tv]

....Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.

Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper
 
netcat wrote:

> What Hadron is saying is that we should deny users the right to modify
> GPL software and to release the result for others to use. That does not
> sound to me like an open-source lover. Rather, it sounds like someone
> who seeks to rip out the very heart of open source.

That's exactly right. It's for the benefit of his beloved Micro$oft Corp.
 
spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:

> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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.
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>
>> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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?



--
Rick
 
Quack quakced:

> The point is quite clear - more and more distros are NOT a good
> idea. Get the existing ones working.

Jawohl, mein fuhrer!
--
Regards,
[tv]

Alas, I am dying beyond my means.
-- Oscar Wilde [as he sipped champagne on his deathbed]
 
Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:

> Quack quakced:
>
>> The point is quite clear - more and more distros are NOT a good
>> idea. Get the existing ones working.
>
> Jawohl, mein fuhrer!

Not even slightly amusing. It becomes more and more apparent that you
wish Linux to fail for some reason since you contribute nothing back
other than blind fan boy love. You should save that for marti.

--
If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy
 
Quack quacked:

> Not even slightly amusing. It becomes more and more apparent that you
> wish Linux to fail for some reason since you contribute nothing back
> other than blind fan boy love. You should save that for marti.

Why would I desire for something I use on a daily basis to fail, Quack?
--
Regards,
[tv]

"The porcupine with the sharpest quills gets stuck on a tree more often."
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:54:20 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Quack quacked:
>
>> Not even slightly amusing. It becomes more and more apparent that you
>> wish Linux to fail for some reason since you contribute nothing back
>> other than blind fan boy love. You should save that for marti.
>
> Why would I desire for something I use on a daily basis to fail, Quack?

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

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
"Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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 <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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...


--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:59:44 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:54:20 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Quack quacked:
>>
>>> Not even slightly amusing. It becomes more and more apparent that you
>>> wish Linux to fail for some reason since you contribute nothing back
>>> other than blind fan boy love. You should save that for marti.
>>
>> Why would I desire for something I use on a daily basis to fail, Quack?
>
> You like self inflicted pain.
> You must, after all you *are* using Linux....


You like self inflicted pain.

You must, after all *you* are using Linux...
--
Rick
 
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.
 
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>
>> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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.
 
Rick wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:29:39 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>
>>> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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
 
Snit wrote:
> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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 <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f8ff79$0$30700$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 9:51 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> 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 <hadronquark@googlemail.com> 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.
 
Back
Top