Yet Another Dud Linux Distribution.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:

> 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

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.
 
Hadron wrote:
> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>
>> 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
>
> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
> suggested.
>
> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.



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

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>> suggested.
>>
>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>
>
>
> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
> minority from the majority.

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

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

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

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

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

> What is fartured about Ubuntu?

No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.
 
Hadron wrote:
> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>
>>
>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>> minority from the majority.
>
> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>
>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>
> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
> minorities are.
>
>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>> it that way.
>
> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>
>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>
> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.


I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
stopping anyone else from the same rights.
If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
caver1
 
"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>>> suggested.
>>>>
>>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>>> minority from the majority.
>>
>> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
>> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
>> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>>
>>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>>
>> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
>> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
>> minorities are.
>>
>>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>>> it that way.
>>
>> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
>> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>>
>>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>>
>> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.
>
>
> I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
> But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
> Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
> I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
> the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
> against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
> others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
> And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
> Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
> But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
> over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
> stopping anyone else from the same rights.
> If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
> fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
> caver1

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

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


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
 
"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f919e5$0$22863$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 11:43 AM:

> Hadron wrote:
>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> 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:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>

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:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>

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

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


--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
 
>Hadron puked:
>>
>> We are talking broken fragmented and
>> buggy as hell distros - even the main ones. You know - the reasons
>> Linux only has about 0.7% of the desktop share.

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

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

--

"We are talking broken fragmented and buggy as hell distros - even the
main ones. You know - the reasons Linux only has about 0.7% of the
desktop share." - "True Linux Advocate" Hadron Quark
 
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:

> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>
>> 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
>
> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
> suggested.
>
> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.

COLA Linux Advocates. :)


--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>
>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>> suggested.
>>
>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>
> COLA Linux Advocates. :)

The mind boggles as to "caver1"s mindset where he thinks it better to
keep a broken, fractured distro because a minority "might" want
it. Huh?!?!?!? I mean, I have heard some stupid things in my life but
this kind of mental thought process leaves me wondering just who these
people are.
 
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
ftbdeo$2ro$2@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 1:56 PM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
>> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>>
>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>
>> COLA Linux Advocates. :)
>
> The mind boggles as to "caver1"s mindset where he thinks it better to
> keep a broken, fractured distro because a minority "might" want
> it. Huh?!?!?!? I mean, I have heard some stupid things in my life but
> this kind of mental thought process leaves me wondering just who these
> people are.

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

The mind boggles.


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
 
Snit wrote:
> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
> 47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> Uh oh. Another crazy who doesn't actually realise what's being
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly we dont necessrily care about "everyone" - only the GREAT
>>>>> majority. Secondly I am hard pressed to think of ANYONE who would not
>>>>> want a better organized distro with a less fractured UI.
>>>>
>>>> Thats where you are wrong. Our society was set up to protect the
>>>> minority from the majority.
>>> No it wasn't. It was set up to serve the needs of the
>>> majority. Minorities have rights of course. And if minorities want to
>>> have a broken distro good luck to them - there's plenty to choose from.
>>>
>>>> Just because YOU want it one way does not make it right.
>>> Wrong. I want what is best for Linux and majority. And a stable,
>>> consistent distro is indeed better no matter how crazy your views on
>>> minorities are.
>>>
>>>> Just because the majority want it one way doesn't mean all Have to do
>>>> it that way.
>>> See? You are confused. No where did I say the minority can not have it
>>> another way. But lets aim for the majority.
>>>
>>>> What is fartured about Ubuntu?
>>> No idea. But "fartured" is apt for some distros.
>>
>> I'll give you that one I'm not sure about that one either. :0
>> But being in reply to your "fractured" I think it was easy enough.
>> Or is that so you can just side step the issue?
>> I think you need to back to school. Who were the powers of the time?
>> the monarchy and religion. The US constitution was set up to protect
>> against each of those. True some thought their ways were better than
>> others hence they should rule. That is why changes were made.
>> And don't say well if they worked within the framework of the
>> Constitution not made another. Software is not law and should never be.
>> But at the same time it gives everyone the right to try the same thing
>> over and over if they want as long as they don't steal from, harm, or
>> stopping anyone else from the same rights.
>> If Hadron wants to make his own Har, har, Hardly hardon distro thats
>> fine with everyone here. Just don't think that anyone will use it.
>> caver1
>
> I think it is a shame that the best answer to how a user can get a distro
> from a group that understands both organization, look, and consistency is
> for the user to become an expert in each area *and* an expert in how to put
> a pro-level Linux distro together and then roll their own.
>
> The development efforts of Linux are fractured - so while there are experts
> in each area (or at least people who show they understand each area well)
> they are not all working together. This will change: eventually a distro
> will pull all of those talents together... Ubuntu seems to be trying (though
> they have big holes in their skill set currently).
>
>


As I said it is still improving. Tell us where they are lacking.
caver1
 
chrisv wrote:
>> Hadron puked:
>>> We are talking broken fragmented and
>>> buggy as hell distros - even the main ones. You know - the reasons
>>> Linux only has about 0.7% of the desktop share.
>
> Funny, I hadn't noticed that PCLOS is"broken fragmented and buggy as
> hell", "true Linux advocate" Hardon Quack.
>
> You're just a snotty POS, Quack. Go suck Billy's wang.
>



So far I have tried PcLinux 2008 KDE. don.t like it. too many steps. But
then again Hardon you still haven't said which one you like.
caver1
 
Hadron wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
>> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>>
>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>> 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.


As I stated before Hardon. What's youyr favorite?
caver1
 
Snit wrote:
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
> ftbdeo$2ro$2@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 1:56 PM:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
>>> ftb22k$e25$4@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 10:42 AM:
>>>
>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>



Okay Hardon tell me where Linux is Broken.
caver1
 
"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f946a2$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 2:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
>> 47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:
>>
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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

From past posts:

PCLOS:

Poorly done menus
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>

Poorly done dialogs:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>

Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>

Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>

Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>

And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
behavior on selection:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>

It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
knowledgeable about computers?


--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
 
"caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
47f9487a$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 3:02 PM:


>>>>>> 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.
>
> Okay Hardon tell me where Linux is Broken.
> caver1

I would love to see your argument as to why organization, attractive looks,
and lack-of-fracturing in the UI would be a bad thing that you would not
want... just seems absurd to me.

--
I know how a jam jar feels...
.... full of jam!
 
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
> 47f9487a$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 3:02 PM:
>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Okay Hardon tell me where Linux is Broken.
>> caver1
>
> I would love to see your argument as to why organization, attractive looks,
> and lack-of-fracturing in the UI would be a bad thing that you would not
> want... just seems absurd to me.

He is absurd. He must be a nym for someone like wRonG.

He keeps asking me to "prove it" after I have just done so. Weird.
 
"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> stated in post
ftc2fr$9cv$5@registered.motzarella.org on 4/6/08 7:55 PM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
>> 47f9487a$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 3:02 PM:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Okay Hardon tell me where Linux is Broken.
>>> caver1
>>
>> I would love to see your argument as to why organization, attractive looks,
>> and lack-of-fracturing in the UI would be a bad thing that you would not
>> want... just seems absurd to me.
>
> He is absurd. He must be a nym for someone like wRonG.
>
> He keeps asking me to "prove it" after I have just done so. Weird.

Prove it. :)


--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
 
Snit wrote:
> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
> 47f946a2$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 2:54 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
>>> 47f92078$0$22824$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 12:11 PM:
>>>
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>
> From past posts:
>
> PCLOS:
>
> Poorly done menus
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-menu.pdf>
>
> Poorly done dialogs:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.pdf>
>
> Poorly done and Inconsistent dialogs:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS2.pdf>
>
> Mouse pointers that do not do as they say:
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS.mov>




personally I don't like PcLinuxOS. But it is very popular.



> Even Ubuntu has its share of quirks - though it is clearly done much better:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/ubuntu-menu.pdf>


Okay you have to go to file to quit.




> And the more recent one showing copy and paste oddities and weird text
> behavior on selection:
>
> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/copy-paste.mov>


Load glipper problem solved.
> It is not like such examples are hard to find - or are not obvious. How
> could anyone who has used Linux and either Windows or OS X not have such
> things be apparent to them - especially someone who considers themselves
> knowledgeable about computers?
>
>



Okay now improve them. Instead of telling everyone how crappy it is.
caver1
 
Snit wrote:
> "caver1" <caver1@inthemud.org> stated in post
> 47f9487a$0$16662$4c368faf@roadrunner.com on 4/6/08 3:02 PM:
>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>> Okay Hardon tell me where Linux is Broken.
>> caver1
>
> I would love to see your argument as to why organization, attractive looks,
> and lack-of-fracturing in the UI would be a bad thing that you would not
> want... just seems absurd to me.
>


There are several of the Linux distros that have very good organization.
Attractive looks? That's in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think
that Mint is very attractive. Then again when I am Word processing I am
just looking to get it done.
Yes there are problems but they are improving at a rapid pace.
So if you have problems with many of the distros pick one or a dozen and
improve them instead of constantly trying to smear the whole Linux
community because you don't like some of the distros.
yes there are more distros then I will even want to try. But Its their
right to try if they want to.
caver1
 
Back
Top