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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#186650 — Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"

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? Some monopoly? A single distro may well result in
>the Ubuntufication of Linux with phoning home and systemd whether
>you want it or not.

	Believe me, he wants it. Every post he's made so far has been
about "privatizing" Linux, and making it a business model. For your
"safety"
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#186659

mike wrote:
> the single repository where everything has been vetted

That's called the Debian archive.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#186670

John Hasler wrote:
> mike wrote:
>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
>
> That's called the Debian archive.
>
I'm not on mike's side, but just to stir the pot a bit; the idea behind 
the Linux Foundation to aspire toward some standardization of the 
filesystem and other variables for the linux standard base compliance 
"standard libraries, a number of commands and utilities that extend the 
POSIX standard, the layout of the file system hierarchy, run levels, the 
printing system, including spoolers such as CUPS and tools like Foomatic 
and several extensions to the X Window System" (wp)

The 800 pound gorilla which doesn't LSB is Debian.

<wp> While the LSB is a standard and without a competitor, it is 
followed only by few Linux distributions. For instance, only 21 
distribution releases (versions) are certified for LSB version 4.0, 
notably Red Flag Linux Desktop 6.0, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0, SUSE 
Linux Enterprise 11, and Ubuntu 9.04 (jaunty);[11] even fewer are 
certified for version 4.1.

The LSB has been criticized[12][13][14][15] for not taking input from 
projects, most notably the Debian project, outside the sphere of its 
member companies. </wp>



-- 
Mike Easter

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

#186674

Mike Easter writes:
> The 800 pound gorilla which doesn't LSB is Debian.

Debian strives to comply with the FSH, POSIX, and other relevant
standards.  LSB, however, is about binary compatibility with
LSB-certified closed-source software.  The fact that Ubuntu dropped
support for it indicates how relevant it is.

Alien and other LSB tools are there if you want them, though.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#186676

John Hasler wrote:
> Mike Easter writes:
>> The 800 pound gorilla which doesn't LSB is Debian.
>
> Debian strives to comply with the FSH, POSIX, and other relevant
> standards.  LSB, however, is about binary compatibility with
> LSB-certified closed-source software.  The fact that Ubuntu dropped
> support for it indicates how relevant it is.
>
> Alien and other LSB tools are there if you want them, though.
>
This is a 2015 message in the mailing lists for debian-devel and debian-lsb

https://lists.debian.org/debian-lsb/2015/07/msg00000.html  Debian LSB 
compliance (was: Re: Standard-producing bodies and Debian)

Mid-year 2015 was also when the Linux Foundation released LSB 5.0, so 
LSB 'development' is ongoing by the foundation.

So, I would say that LSB is an ongoing project of interest/value to the 
foundation, while it is NOT to Debian.

I think that is a rather significant 'schism'.

-- 
Mike Easter

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

#186737

John Hasler wrote:

> LSB, however, is about binary compatibility with
> LSB-certified closed-source software.

That's just plain fugly.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

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

#186681

On 2016-01-26 18:36, Mike Easter wrote:

> <wp> While the LSB is a standard and without a competitor, it is
> followed only by few Linux distributions. For instance, only 21
> distribution releases (versions) are certified for LSB version 4.0,
> notably Red Flag Linux Desktop 6.0, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0, SUSE
> Linux Enterprise 11, and Ubuntu 9.04 (jaunty);[11] even fewer are
> certified for version 4.1.

That certification, does it cost money?

Because that would explain why, for instance, Linux Enterprise 11 is,
but not the openSUSE releases of the same time period on which it is based.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

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

#186684

Carlos writes:
> That certification, does it cost money?

Yes.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Standards/The_Linux_Standard_Base#Linux_Standard_Base_Certification

Irrelevant to my point that the Debian archive *is* a repository of
packages that have been vetted, though.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#186688

On 2016-01-26, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
>>
>> That's called the Debian archive.
>>
> I'm not on mike's side, but just to stir the pot a bit; the idea behind 
> the Linux Foundation to aspire toward some standardization of the 
> filesystem and other variables for the linux standard base compliance 

    Unix is designed in an abstract enough manner that rigid standardization
of that sort is really unecesary.

> "standard libraries, a number of commands and utilities that extend the 
> POSIX standard, the layout of the file system hierarchy, run levels, the 

   In other words: GNU. Linux shares a common base user land that it inherited
from that other project that was nearly done except for the kernel.

> printing system, including spoolers such as CUPS and tools like Foomatic 
> and several extensions to the X Window System" (wp)

   Again, a simple side effect of there being only one project that covers
the given functional category.

[deletia]

   Linux is the combination of a small number of major upstream projects and
in some cases ONE AND ONLY ONE single upstream project.

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

#186736

Mike Easter wrote:

> John Hasler wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
>>
>> That's called the Debian archive.
>>
> I'm not on mike's side, but just to stir the pot a bit; the idea
> behind the Linux Foundation to aspire toward some standardization of
> the filesystem and other variables for the linux standard base
> compliance "standard libraries, a number of commands and utilities
> that extend the POSIX standard, the layout of the file system
> hierarchy, run levels, the printing system, including spoolers such as
> CUPS and tools like Foomatic and several extensions to the X Window
> System" (wp)
> 
> The 800 pound gorilla which doesn't LSB is Debian.
> 
> <wp> While the LSB is a standard and without a competitor, it is
> followed only by few Linux distributions. For instance, only 21
> distribution releases (versions) are certified for LSB version 4.0,
> notably Red Flag Linux Desktop 6.0, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0, SUSE
> Linux Enterprise 11, and Ubuntu 9.04 (jaunty);[11] even fewer are
> certified for version 4.1.
> 
> The LSB has been criticized[12][13][14][15] for not taking input from
> projects, most notably the Debian project, outside the sphere of its
> member companies. </wp>

There are two ways standards like that get set up and adhered to.

The good way is through evolution, people come up with tools/methods 
that are so much superior and easier to use that mankind's natural 
laziness floats them directly to the top; they become standards because 
they are simply the best available.

The bad way is through edict.  Unfortunately the difference between 
fascism and standards committees is that one uses guns and the other 
uses money.  Nature's laws are self-enforcing, anything that requires 
compliance and/or enforcement is somewhat unnatural.

imo.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

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

#186739

El 27/01/16 a las 12:58, crankypuss escribió:
> There are two ways standards like that get set up and adhered to.
>
> The good way is through evolution, people come up with tools/methods
> that are so much superior and easier to use that mankind's natural
> laziness floats them directly to the top; they become standards because
> they are simply the best available.
>
> The bad way is through edict.  Unfortunately the difference between
> fascism and standards committees is that one uses guns and the other
> uses money.  Nature's laws are self-enforcing, anything that requires
> compliance and/or enforcement is somewhat unnatural.
>
> imo.

The 'bad' way is the correct way when there are not big difference
between alternatives (i.e. to drive in the right or in the left).
That's a Nash equilibrium point. The parts are far better with any
standard than with no standard.

However I don't know if this is the case in LSB.

-- 
http://gamo.eu.pn/
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance

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

#186744

gamo wrote:

> El 27/01/16 a las 12:58, crankypuss escribió:
>> There are two ways standards like that get set up and adhered to.
>>
>> The good way is through evolution, people come up with tools/methods
>> that are so much superior and easier to use that mankind's natural
>> laziness floats them directly to the top; they become standards
>> because they are simply the best available.
>>
>> The bad way is through edict.  Unfortunately the difference between
>> fascism and standards committees is that one uses guns and the other
>> uses money.  Nature's laws are self-enforcing, anything that requires
>> compliance and/or enforcement is somewhat unnatural.
>>
>> imo.
> 
> The 'bad' way is the correct way when there are not big difference
> between alternatives (i.e. to drive in the right or in the left).
> That's a Nash equilibrium point. The parts are far better with any
> standard than with no standard.

That's the conventional view, maybe; I tend to drive where there are not 
other cars, a general case that works for all specific cases.  

Do you think cops follow the speed laws, or that an ambulance driver 
agonizes over which side of the road he has to drive on to prevent 
someone's dying?

> However I don't know if this is the case in LSB.

What LSB?  Is there an LSB?  Really?  There's news of an LSB.  I'm not 
seeing much LSB in real life.  I'm seeing fewer differences between 
distros than I saw a few years ago, because I've learned more about 
what's under them, which hasn't changed much at all.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

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

#186730

On Tuesday 26 Jan 2016 16:56, John Hasler conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux...

> mike wrote:
>
>> the single repository where everything has been vetted
> 
> That's called the Debian archive.

You're wasting your time, John.  Lowercase mike has already been 
explained all of this abundantly in the past, oh, four years or so.  

He doesn't want any answers.  He only wants to whine, and perpetually 
so.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

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

#186694

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.

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
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.

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.
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.

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]

#186695

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. 

>
> 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]

#186698

William Unruh wrote:

> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
> brands of peas. Only one is needed.

lowercase mike doesn't eat peas. He can't -- there are 20 brands and he 
has no idea which one to buy, or how to open any of the cans and cook 
them, so he goes to alt.vegetables.peas and badmouths all brands of peas.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high

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

#186733

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>
> lowercase mike doesn't eat peas. He can't -- there are 20 brands and he 
> has no idea which one to buy, or how to open any of the cans and cook 
> them, so he goes to alt.vegetables.peas and badmouths all brands of peas.

It's a function of "mike"'s pea brain.

-- 
Delores breezed along the surface of her life like a flat stone forever
skipping along smooth water, rippling reality sporadically but oblivious
to it consistently, until she finally lost momentum, sank, and due to an
overdose of flouride as a child which caused her to suffer from chronic
apathy, doomed herself to lie forever on the floor of her life as useless
as an appendix and as lonely as a five-hundred pound barbell in a
steroid-free fitness center.
		-- Winning sentence, 1990 Bulwer-Lytton bad fiction contest.

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

#186745

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.inwalid> writes:

> William Unruh wrote:
>
>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>
> lowercase mike doesn't eat peas. He can't -- there are 20 brands and he 
> has no idea which one to buy, or how to open any of the cans and cook 
> them, so he goes to alt.vegetables.peas and badmouths all brands of peas.

He also tries to use a hammer to open the cans and then says that peas
are defective and some company should fix the pea environment. Then all
other companies and organizations should give up and everyone would get
their peas from the same place.

Writing that made me think of "Deb-pea-an," but I couldn't think of a
good way of including that, so I'm just going to throw it out there.

Sometimes I think mike is a real peanix...

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

#186746

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:00:12 -0500, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com>
Gave us:

>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.inwalid> writes:
>
>> William Unruh wrote:
>>
>>> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
>>> brands of peas. Only one is needed.
>>
>> lowercase mike doesn't eat peas. He can't -- there are 20 brands and he 
>> has no idea which one to buy, or how to open any of the cans and cook 
>> them, so he goes to alt.vegetables.peas and badmouths all brands of peas.
>
>He also tries to use a hammer to open the cans and then says that peas
>are defective and some company should fix the pea environment. Then all
>other companies and organizations should give up and everyone would get
>their peas from the same place.
>
>Writing that made me think of "Deb-pea-an," but I couldn't think of a
>good way of including that, so I'm just going to throw it out there.
>
>Sometimes I think mike is a real peanix...

  Deb-peon  or Deb-pee-on (debutante to pee on)

  Piss on mike.

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

#186711

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!  :-)

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web