Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172159
| From | William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates |
| Date | 2013-04-06 22:56 +0100 |
| Organization | Dumb Willie Boaster @ Llareggub Inc. |
| Message-ID | <r9i63a-ad4.ln1@wp.alpha-one.linuxorg> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <CD820DCD.186CE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <20130406075428.108@usenet.drumscum.be> <CD851BD1.188B3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <kjp2m0$475$1@dont-email.me> <kjpqii$574$2@dont-email.me> |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom: > >> On 04/06/2013 09:24 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/5/13 11:08 PM, in article 20130406075428.108@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB" >>> <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> For the people making the two very different DEs to agree *on some back-end* >>> things which would allow the open source ecosystem to be better. >> >> Well, clearly it is their choice *not* to do this. If they wanted to do >> this, they already would've. >> >> You (and others I'm sure) want KDE and Gnome to agree on "some back-end >> things"; KDE and Gnome *choose* not to. >> >> Now, would it be a bad thing if KDE and Gnome /did/ choose to agree on >> "some back-end things"? No, I definitely don't think so. But in the end >> it's their choice, and their decision to make. And I don't see it >> happen. They are *competing* environments - just like Windows and OSX - >> that happen to run on top of various UNIX-like operating systems. >> >> Do I /want/ them to cooperate? It simply doesn't matter; it's up to >> them. They are the ones that should want it, and if they don't then so >> be it. >> >> Personally I think it's pretty naive to believe that there can be a >> level of cooperation between KDE and Gnome in the face of spin offs like >> Unity, Cinnamon and Mate, which takes the diversity (and thus >> "fragmentation") even further. That alone should be a *huge* eye opener >> for people like you. >> >> As a good GNU/Linux advocate I simply accept that one of the big >> strengths of GNU/Linux (diversity) also introduces a number of downsides. > > If it bugs Snit so much, why doesn't he create or sponsor a Linux distro > with packages that do just that? He could carry it along, watch it > grow, *market* it, get OEMs to carry it in addition to Microsoft's > offerings, and get rich. > > Sounds like a real winner, if you listen to this troll's whinings. > Why doesn't Snit just PUT UP or SHUT UP? Because he's *not* that clever, so instead he'd sooner bitch, moan & whine about it. -- All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound? Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy. Microsoft exec Ron Markezich was quoted saying that for every $1 companies spend on Microsoft software, they need to spend $6 getting it to work right. -- April 2011 SanFrancisco Chronical -- "We have no intention of shipping another bloated OS and shoving it down the throats of our users." -- Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president -- What's bad about Micro$oft: http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 22:26 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-03 16:48 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 06:08 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 00:24 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:01 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:33 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 13:53 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:57 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:05 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:53 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:52 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:50 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:35 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 18:15 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:56 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 20:12 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:31 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-07 08:49 +0200
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 09:06 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 17:02 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 10:43 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:36 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-08 11:28 -0500
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 09:44 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 14:49 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 12:04 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 22:56 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 15:09 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:45 -0500
chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 06:57 -0700
Re: chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 07:03 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 07:00 -0400
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 12:52 +0100
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:48 -0700
Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:46 -0700
csiph-web