Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux.ubuntu > #186650 > unrolled thread

Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux.ubuntu

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-26 12:04 -0200
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 09:56 -0600
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-26 09:36 -0800
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 11:59 -0600
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-26 10:11 -0800
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 04:59 -0700
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-26 19:39 +0100
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 13:10 -0600
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 13:12 -0600
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 04:58 -0700
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2016-01-27 13:16 +0100
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:37 -0700
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:23 +0100
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 15:15 -0800
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-27 00:16 +0000
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.inwalid> - 2016-01-27 02:26 +0000
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-27 06:12 -0500
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 09:00 -0500
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 09:03 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:46 -0500
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:57 -0800
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:35 -0500
              Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 08:55 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:10 -0500
                  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 09:15 -0600
                    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:20 -0500
                    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:28 -0500
                    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-27 10:06 -0600
                      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 11:19 -0500
                        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 10:58 -0600
                          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 16:11 -0500
                      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:36 -0600
                        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:41 -0600
                          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 16:08 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:13 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:45 -0800
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:28 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-27 05:57 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-27 13:08 +0100
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 07:49 -0500
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-27 23:41 +0100
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> - 2016-01-29 07:27 -0600
              Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 08:49 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-29 10:23 -0600
                  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
                    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Catzilla <catzilla@pussyboss.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:26 +0000
                      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 20:01 -0500
                        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Catzilla <catzilla@pussyboss.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:41 +0000
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:41 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:56 -0800
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:32 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:41 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:43 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:44 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 05:41 -0700
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 07:52 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#186718

On 1/26/2016 9:46 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:16:18 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh
> <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us:
>
>> No, just short sighted and blind to realities.
>>
>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>
>    +plus 1+  even...   raw raw raw!  :-)
>
five responses to one post.
Let the UTI begin.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186729

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:57:27 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

>On 1/26/2016 9:46 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:16:18 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh
>> <unruh@invalid.ca> Gave us:
>>
>>> No, just short sighted and blind to realities.
>>>
>>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>>
>>    +plus 1+  even...   raw raw raw!  :-)
>>
>five responses to one post.
>Let the UTI begin.

  No, idiot.  I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.

  So, punk...  what is your lame invalid made up dumbfuck acronym?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186748

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:35:40 -0500
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.

Er, Doctor Unruh, please.  Let's not disparage his (or
anyone's) accomplishments.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186749

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:55:32 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:35:40 -0500
>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.
>
>Er, Doctor Unruh, please.  Let's not disparage his (or
>anyone's) accomplishments.
>
>Cybe R. Wizard

  Well, his Usenet posting moniker is Wm. unruh, so I went with that,
and was unaware of any titling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186751

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:10:16 -0500
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:55:32 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
> <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
> 
> >On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:35:40 -0500
> >DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.  
> >
> >Er, Doctor Unruh, please.  Let's not disparage his (or
> >anyone's) accomplishments.
> >
> >Cybe R. Wizard  
> 
>   Well, his Usenet posting moniker is Wm. unruh, so I went with that,
> and was unaware of any titling.

True.  I guess I'm just a follower of theoretical physics.  He isn't one
of those who flaunt their following letters. Still:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._G._Unruh
http://www.phas.ubc.ca/users/william-unruh

(on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
"theatrical physics."  Maybe, maybe not)

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186752

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:15:06 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>(on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>"theatrical physics."  Maybe, maybe not)

  Einstein used to stick his tongue out for the cameras.

  Hawking just made babies as he was a bit more (or less) physics-ally
challenged.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186753

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:15:06 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:10:16 -0500
>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:55:32 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
>> <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:
>> 
>> >On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:35:40 -0500
>> >DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>> >  
>> >> I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.  
>> >
>> >Er, Doctor Unruh, please.  Let's not disparage his (or
>> >anyone's) accomplishments.
>> >
>> >Cybe R. Wizard  
>> 
>>   Well, his Usenet posting moniker is Wm. unruh, so I went with that,
>> and was unaware of any titling.
>
>True.  I guess I'm just a follower of theoretical physics.  He isn't one
>of those who flaunt their following letters. Still:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._G._Unruh
>http://www.phas.ubc.ca/users/william-unruh
>
>(on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>"theatrical physics."  Maybe, maybe not)
>
>Cybe R. Wizard

  He'd probably like my Dark Matter model...

  Instead of tendrils like they show today, mine was two giant hershey
kiss shaped masses of it above and beneath a given galaxy (spiral type),
which is why we have a polarized 'universe'.  The masses are (up
to)hundreds of times bigger than the galaxy itself.  That accounts for
the disparity they created dark energy for.  They just did not know how
big the dark matter masses actually are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186754

Cybe R. Wizard writes:
> on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
> "theatrical physics."

No.  That's Tyson.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186755

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
Gave us:

>Cybe R. Wizard writes:
>> on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>> "theatrical physics."
>
>No.  That's Tyson.


  The chicken or the ear biter?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186759

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:19:43 -0500, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
> Gave us:
> 
>>Cybe R. Wizard writes:
>>> on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>>> "theatrical physics."
>>
>>No.  That's Tyson.
> 
> 
>   The chicken or the ear biter?

Probably talking about this guy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

-- 
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186765

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:58:09 -0600, Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:19:43 -0500, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600, John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com>
>> Gave us:
>> 
>>>Cybe R. Wizard writes:
>>>> on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>>>> "theatrical physics."
>>>
>>>No.  That's Tyson.
>> 
>> 
>>   The chicken or the ear biter?
>
>Probably talking about this guy...
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson


  Strict evolutionist.

 God doesn't exist.

  Yeah....  I know this guy's shtuff speil.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186757

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Cybe R. Wizard writes:
> > on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
> > "theatrical physics."  
> 
> No.  That's Tyson.

Ta-tish-BOOM!   

I couldn't agree more.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186758

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:36:19 -0600
"Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600
> John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 
> > Cybe R. Wizard writes:  
> > > on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
> > > "theatrical physics."    
> > 
> > No.  That's Tyson.  
> 
> Ta-tish-BOOM!

Sorry, ba-BOOM-tish.   

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User (deprecated) # 2136

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186763

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:41:03 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:36:19 -0600
>"Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:06:28 -0600
>> John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Cybe R. Wizard writes:  
>> > > on that second link my old eyes thought he was involved with,
>> > > "theatrical physics."    
>> > 
>> > No.  That's Tyson.  
>> 
>> Ta-tish-BOOM!
>
>Sorry, ba-BOOM-tish.   
>
>Cybe R. Wizard

  Rant ta dant da dant te
 Rant ta dant da dant te
 Rant ta dant da dant te Raaaaaaant!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186750

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:55:32 -0600, "Cybe R. Wizard"
<cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> Gave us:

>On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:35:40 -0500
>DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
>
>> I responded to Mr. Unruh one time.
>
>Er, Doctor Unruh, please.  Let's not disparage his (or
>anyone's) accomplishments.
>
>Cybe R. Wizard


  Are you trying to ruh-shhh me?  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186716

On 1/26/2016 4:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2016-01-26, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2016 6:04 AM, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:49:22 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>>> <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in <news:n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
>>>>
>>>> Vetted by whom?
>>
>> Say there are a hundred distros.  Each has someone determining what
>> goes in the distro and how it all works together and is compatible with
>> all the rest of the desktop linux stuff in the repository they use.
>
> ?? The whole reason for many distros is that people disagree on what
> should be in the distro and what tools should be available to run the
> distro. Some people like systemd, some do not. Some want to make a good
> server, some what to make a good desktop, some a good laptop distro.
> etc.
> And if you start telling volunteers what to do, they start leaving if
> they do not understand the necessity (rather than the prejudice) of the
> decisions. They are giving their time. Why should they listen to some
> dictator?
>
>>
>> You have a HUNDRED volunteers who could be coordinated by a team leader
>> to manage the standards, maintain the (ever improving) automated
>> first-line compatibility test
>
> And they would stick around why?
>
>> suite and keep THE repository up to date and self-consistent.
>> It's the same damn people.  You just have to get them to agree
>> on standards and practices and pledge their support of those standards
>> and practices.
>
> But there would be three different groups and each would "agree" on
> different things. You do what at that point? Fire them?
>
>
>>
>> Creating a custom distro would be as simple as writing the install
>> script.  If there's a problem with the distro, you fix whatever is busted
>> in the repository or the dependency management system and the test
>> suites that should have identified the issue...because everything
>> has been designed so it JUST WORKS.
>>
>> Some monopoly? A single distro may well result in
>>>> the Ubuntufication of Linux with phoning home and systemd whether
>>>> you want it or not.
>>
>> Well, YOU get to decide, through the various coordinated teams.
>
> YOU? Team? So it is not YOU. Any team will have dissent.
>
>> If you don't want it to phone home, you write the compliance tests
>> to reject any that do.  That won't prevent non-compliant rogue distros
>> from emerging.
>> But anything calling itself LINUX must comply with standards evolving
>> as the governing teams see fit.  If it's not LINUX, it
>> is not guaranteed to work with the rest of LINUX.
>> If it is LINUX, you can expect that intuit(turbo-tax), nvidia and everybody
>> else has a stable target and the ability to make a net profit from their
>> LINUX development/support efforts.
>>
>
>> Users don't want systemd or any other operating system characteristic.
>> They want APPLICATIONS that just work.
>> Fight about it among yourselves all you want.  But present a unified
>> front to the industry and users.
>>>
>>> 	Believe me, he wants it.
>>
>> Your input suggests that you have no clue what I want, but that doesn't
>> inhibit your vilification.
>>
>> Every post he's made so far has been
>>> about "privatizing" Linux, and making it a business model. For your
>>> "safety"
>>> 	[]'s
>>>
>> Yes, that's the party line.  Call standardization privatizing and
>> cast it as evil.
>
> No, just short sighted and blind to realities.
>
> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
> brands of peas. Only one is needed.

That's absurd.  Desktop linux is EVERYTHING in one place, the repository.

If you ask the clerk to bring you everything you need for dinner,
you get the store brand peas and the store brand everything else.
The store brand has been tested with the recipe and is guaranteed to
cook up as advertised and taste like the recipe should, according
to the majority of cooks involved in the process of dinner.

If you find you like the taste of different peas, you specify
them my name by checking the box on the order form.  But you use it
just like the store brand.  It's in the same type of can.  Works
with the same can opener...unless they're frozen, in which case
it comes with scissors to open the plastic.  And the recipe changes to 
add the thawing process...dependencies automagically
resolved.

The new brand of peas has been tested against the recipe
and gives you a slightly different experience, per your request.

If you don't like that, you can call your friend and ask for advice.
Your friend suggests a third kind of peas might be better for you.
So you go back to the store and check a different box for peas.

You want a dinner recipe from Chef Ubuntu, check that box instead.
Same store, same clerk, same configurability.  Only difference is
that you always get a can opener, even if this dinner doesn't need it,
because you are likely to need one eventually, according to the majority
of cooks at Chez Linux.  But, if you really don't want one, you can prevent
shipment or ship it back later.  You'll get a new one next time
you select something that requires it.  Problem is that you won't
have one that everybody else assumes.  So, when the craft newsgroup
tells you how to make something out of tin can parts, you won't have
the tool.  And they'll be calling you stupid for not understanding.

At any time, if you want breakfast, you can check a different set
of boxes and you get a breakfast recipe and ingredients.  You can
even have peas for breakfast if you check the box.

If your a farmer and want to have your peas added to the store inventory,
you know EXACTLY who to call to submit your sample.  You only need
ONE phone number.
The TEAM evaluates your submission.   If it works in every recipe
without materially changing the result, and is free of disease,
you get to add it to the peas category.  If it doesn't, they tell
you why and suggest how to modify it for compliance.  If you don't
want to change anything, you can resubmit it as "peas-adjacent".

If Chez Wolfgang wants to redesign your whole kitchen, he can do
that with a new page of checkboxes that work with the existing
repository.  If he wants something that is not in the repository,
he has to write it and get it submitted/accepted to the repository.
Everything still works.
If he doesn't want that, he can go rogue and do his own support.
He loses the license to call it LINUX and his support requests
go to the bottom of the LINUX-adjacent pile.

Note that during this entire process, nobody EVER had to type in
any commands with a bunch of unfathomable  options.
GUI interface.  ALL options in a hierarchy of checkboxes and
menu selections.  You don't have to guess what might be required.

This is not rocket science.  It's transparency for vendors and
users alike.  It tells you what
you get automagically and gives you to option to change it to
something else at any time with a few clicks of the mouse.
And nobody lost any freedom at all.
And no privatizing at all.

The only thing required is the decision to do so.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that the existing bunch
of players like the attention they get from forking up
everything with which they disagree and will oppose
any attempts to standardize/consolidate with prejudice.
The chaos is likely to persist. Sad!

While I wrote this, I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 14.04.3.

First try, vlc plays .wtv files over the network from a windows
machine.  Definitely an improvement from my last venture into
ubuntu...so far...


>
>>
>> I've never, ever advocated privatization.  I've talked
>> about standardization, coordination, cooperation, JUST WORKS
>> and LINUX as a viable desktop alternative for joe average.
>>
>> In the above, I've used the term "LINUX" as a moniker for the
>> coordinated desktop computing platform.  I care not one bit
>> what it's called or what's under the hood.  To the user,
>> it's a set of apps that just work without endless, complex configuration
>> issues.  To commercial developers, it's a means to make a buck.
>>
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186727

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:45:47 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

>On 1/26/2016 4:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2016-01-26, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2016 6:04 AM, Shadow wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:49:22 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>>>> <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in <news:n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>
>>>>>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
>>>>>
>>>>> Vetted by whom?
>>>
>>> Say there are a hundred distros.  Each has someone determining what
>>> goes in the distro and how it all works together and is compatible with
>>> all the rest of the desktop linux stuff in the repository they use.
>>
>> ?? The whole reason for many distros is that people disagree on what
>> should be in the distro and what tools should be available to run the
>> distro. Some people like systemd, some do not. Some want to make a good
>> server, some what to make a good desktop, some a good laptop distro.
>> etc.
>> And if you start telling volunteers what to do, they start leaving if
>> they do not understand the necessity (rather than the prejudice) of the
>> decisions. They are giving their time. Why should they listen to some
>> dictator?
>>
>>>
>>> You have a HUNDRED volunteers who could be coordinated by a team leader
>>> to manage the standards, maintain the (ever improving) automated
>>> first-line compatibility test
>>
>> And they would stick around why?
>>
>>> suite and keep THE repository up to date and self-consistent.
>>> It's the same damn people.  You just have to get them to agree
>>> on standards and practices and pledge their support of those standards
>>> and practices.
>>
>> But there would be three different groups and each would "agree" on
>> different things. You do what at that point? Fire them?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Creating a custom distro would be as simple as writing the install
>>> script.  If there's a problem with the distro, you fix whatever is busted
>>> in the repository or the dependency management system and the test
>>> suites that should have identified the issue...because everything
>>> has been designed so it JUST WORKS.
>>>
>>> Some monopoly? A single distro may well result in
>>>>> the Ubuntufication of Linux with phoning home and systemd whether
>>>>> you want it or not.
>>>
>>> Well, YOU get to decide, through the various coordinated teams.
>>
>> YOU? Team? So it is not YOU. Any team will have dissent.
>>
>>> If you don't want it to phone home, you write the compliance tests
>>> to reject any that do.  That won't prevent non-compliant rogue distros
>>> from emerging.
>>> But anything calling itself LINUX must comply with standards evolving
>>> as the governing teams see fit.  If it's not LINUX, it
>>> is not guaranteed to work with the rest of LINUX.
>>> If it is LINUX, you can expect that intuit(turbo-tax), nvidia and everybody
>>> else has a stable target and the ability to make a net profit from their
>>> LINUX development/support efforts.
>>>
>>
>>> Users don't want systemd or any other operating system characteristic.
>>> They want APPLICATIONS that just work.
>>> Fight about it among yourselves all you want.  But present a unified
>>> front to the industry and users.
>>>>
>>>> 	Believe me, he wants it.
>>>
>>> Your input suggests that you have no clue what I want, but that doesn't
>>> inhibit your vilification.
>>>
>>> Every post he's made so far has been
>>>> about "privatizing" Linux, and making it a business model. For your
>>>> "safety"
>>>> 	[]'s
>>>>
>>> Yes, that's the party line.  Call standardization privatizing and
>>> cast it as evil.
>>
>> No, just short sighted and blind to realities.
>>
>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>
>That's absurd.  Desktop linux is EVERYTHING in one place, the repository.
>

  You're an idiot.  The repositories are exactly as he described.
Desktop Linux is whatever EACH INDIVIDUAL USER makes it for himself.  It
is specifically and explicitly NOT a generic does it all thing for
babies like you.

>If you ask the clerk to bring you everything you need for dinner,
>you get the store brand peas and the store brand everything else.

  Bullshit.  You go and SHOP for the items yourself.  Only invalid dorks
get clerks that go grab things specifically for them.  Most folks get
told what isle to report to to find the sought item's compendium of
choices.

>The store brand has been tested with the recipe and is guaranteed to
>cook up as advertised and taste like the recipe should, according
>to the majority of cooks involved in the process of dinner.

  You're a goddamned idiot.
>
>If you find you like the taste of different peas, you specify
>them my name by checking the box on the order form.

  There is no order form, idiot.  He was talking about the store.  YOU
are talking about some lame delivery service *some* stores provide for
dweeb jackasses like you or for an invalid in need.

  In your case, the term 'invalid' applies in the manner it does in the
film "Gattaca".

>  But you use it
>just like the store brand.  It's in the same type of can.  Works
>with the same can opener...unless they're frozen, in which case
>it comes with scissors to open the plastic.

  You are describing Linux, you are just too stupid to get it.

>  And the recipe changes to 
>add the thawing process...dependencies automagically
>resolved.

  Mixing metaphors now, idiot?
>
>The new brand of peas has been tested against the recipe
>and gives you a slightly different experience, per your request.

  You are a true idiot.
>
>If you don't like that, you can call your friend and ask for advice.

  Yep...  sounds like Linux.  You are simply too stupid to know how to
use the can opener, and too ineducable to learn.

>Your friend suggests a third kind of peas might be better for you.
>So you go back to the store and check a different box for peas.

  Uhuh.  You buy you peas in a box, do you?
>
>You want a dinner recipe from Chef Ubuntu, check that box instead.
>Same store, same clerk, same configurability.  Only difference is
>that you always get a can opener, even if this dinner doesn't need it,

  Fuck you, you metaphorical dumbfuck.  You are worse that Donald Trump
and his abject stupidity about pretty much anything.

>because you are likely to need one eventually, according to the majority
>of cooks at Chez Linux. 

  You need one rammed up your ass.

>. But, if you really don't want one, you can prevent
>shipment or ship it back later.  You'll get a new one next time
>you select something that requires it.  Problem is that you won't
>have one that everybody else assumes.  So, when the craft newsgroup
>tells you how to make something out of tin can parts, you won't have
>the tool.  And they'll be calling you stupid for not understanding.

  You are stupid.  For having zero common sense and blaming that lacking
on everyone around you.  You, in fact, epitomize that stupid behavior.
>
>At any time, if you want breakfast, you can check a different set
>of boxes and you get a breakfast recipe and ingredients.  You can
>even have peas for breakfast if you check the box.

  Sorry, chump, but here we make our own check-box form before we get
started.  It is called a requirements analysis, Mr. Manufacturing
background chump, except yours is broken.  That is not our fault either
as you *should* have the intellectual tools to perform the job, except
that your inane "requirement" is that "it should just work" because you
are too goddamned lazy to apply any brain power to the situation, much
less credit those who have over the last few decades.
>
>If your a farmer and want to have your peas added to the store inventory,
>you know EXACTLY who to call to submit your sample.  You only need
>ONE phone number.

  Sorry, chump, but just like youtube, items gain popularity through
exposure and acceptance, not some lame, childish formula.

>The TEAM evaluates your submission.

  You do not even have the way grocery retailers operate.  It is all
about price and weight and delivery capacity.  NONE of which have any
correlation to the open source realm.

>   If it works in every recipe
>without materially changing the result, and is free of disease,

  Your brain has obviously taken on a disease.  Lazy Windroid fucktard
disease.

>you get to add it to the peas category.  If it doesn't, they tell
>you why and suggest how to modify it for compliance.  If you don't
>want to change anything, you can resubmit it as "peas-adjacent".


  Like we do you....  brain adjacent, but wholly broken.
>
>If Chez Wolfgang wants to redesign your whole kitchen, he can do
>that with a new page of checkboxes that work with the existing
>repository.

  Sorry chump, but each individual user is their own chef, jackass.  Go
masturbate somewhere else.

>  If he wants something that is not in the repository,
>he has to write it and get it submitted/accepted to the repository.
>Everything still works.

  Except your brain and your inane attempts at making a metaphor.

>If he doesn't want that, he can go rogue and do his own support.
>He loses the license to call it LINUX and his support requests
>go to the bottom of the LINUX-adjacent pile.

  You still do not get it..  Ubuntu, Mint, Redhat, et all are NOT Linux.
They run Linux and are compilations of applets that work under Linux.
That is how you get things like USB and network hooks a mouse and a
microphone and speakers, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
>
>Note that during this entire process, nobody EVER had to type in
>any commands with a bunch of unfathomable  options.

  That is because your inane metaphor is like writing a grocery list
against the massive plethora of CHOICES provided by the realm within
which Linux is but one element.

>GUI interface.  ALL options in a hierarchy of checkboxes and
>menu selections.  You don't have to guess what might be required.

  There is no guessing..  You should ALREADY know that YOU have to add
whatever you need to get to where you wish to go.

  If you do not get it, your IQ is far too low to be a Linux user, much
less any of the elements like desktop environments, etc. that run within
it.
>
>This is not rocket science.

  Which is why so many here cannot figure out why you, with your touted
resume of industrial experience, cannot get the simple fact that the
realm you are referring to is massive and complicated, yet has come as
far as it has, despite idiots like you denigrating it at every turn.

>.  It's transparency for vendors and
>users alike.  It tells you what
>you get automagically

  Idiot.  There is no automagically.  YOU have to automagically realize
that it is YOU who must pursue and solve.

> and gives you to option to change it to
>something else at any time with a few clicks of the mouse.
>And nobody lost any freedom at all.
>And no privatizing at all.

  Every piece of hardware is different.  Linux has done an excellent
job, considering all of the obstacles it had to hurdle to get where it
is today.  Despite horse blindered dorks like you.

>The only thing required is the decision to do so.

  Yes, idiot.  YOU must decide to trudge through the tundra to get
across the plains.  The rain in your brain falls mainly on the plains.
You need to learn how to travel to get to point B, not cry wolf (or
cripple) and expect to be handheld or cuss at God because the plains
exist.
>
>Having said all that, I do acknowledge that the existing bunch
>of players like the attention they get from forking up
>everything with which they disagree and will oppose
>any attempts to standardize/consolidate with prejudice.

  You know absofuckinglutely NOTHING about "the existing bunch of
players" or you would not be pissing and moaning about the state of
their toils.

>The chaos is likely to persist. Sad!

  Yes, motherfucker, you are one sad, chaotic dumbfuck.

>While I wrote this, I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 14.04.3.

  Oh boy!

>First try, vlc plays .wtv files over the network from a windows
>machine.  Definitely an improvement from my last venture into
>ubuntu...so far...

  Fuck you, shithead, and the whore you were shat out of.

  Why can't we have real, mature users who just automagically understand
what the fuck it took to create such a massive compendium of efforts to
circumnavigate the insecure CRAP that is Windows?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186731

William Unruh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2016-01-26, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>

It's "mike", a guy who's been trolling his nonsense here for years.

You're not going to convince him of anything.  He's either obsessed
or he's paid to troll here.

-- 
Your depth of comprehension may tend to make you lax in worldly ways.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186738

Op 27-01-16 om 01:16 schreef William Unruh:
> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
> brands of peas. Only one is needed.

Almost right :)

Linux is more like a large selection of Whiskies, from simple and easy 
to very complex and an acquired taste.

Mikey was told by his mom that as long as he lives in her basement he 
can choose between Coke and Pepsi.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186741

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:08:16 +0100, "Dirk T. Verbeek"
<dverbeek@xs4all.nl> Gave us:

>Op 27-01-16 om 01:16 schreef William Unruh:
>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>
>Almost right :)
>
>Linux is more like a large selection of Whiskies, from simple and easy 
>to very complex and an acquired taste.

  Maker's Mark is pretty good stuff.
>
>Mikey was told by his mom that as long as he lives in her basement he 
>can choose between Coke and Pepsi.

  Dr. Pepper.  Rarely drink any other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux.ubuntu

csiph-web