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.

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.