Huh?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sander_Marechal Sep 24, 2007 2:12 AM EDT |
Ubuntu Linux is too troublesome for the average desktop user because Con Kolivas' kernel patches weren't applied? I don't know what Don Reisinger has been smoking, but can I have some? It must be good. Sounds to me like yet another ill informed "reporter" that munched together a few headlines from other sources and tries to give it a spin, without even knowing the first thing about the subject at hand (like the fact that Linux == kernel and Ubuntu == OS == Kernel + lots of other stuff). |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 4:58 AM EDT |
Huh? is right, but applies equally to your comment. Nowhere in the article does the author imply that con's patches have anything to do with making Linux too troublesome for the average user. Please refer to the Rev's article on wireless for an example of how to be an advocate without being dishonest. |
| vainrveenr Sep 24, 2007 7:36 AM EDT |
Direct quote from Don Reisinger's article
Quoting:The Linux community is an interesting group. Much like Republicans and Democrats, Linux is dominated by two factions with entirely different ideas. The conservatives want Linux to stay Linux and the liberals want to make money. Call me a conservative, or call me what you will, but the liberals are off-base. Sure seems as if the first above "Huh?" commentator to this is closer to the conservative extreme whereas the second "Huh?"ffer is really much closer to the liberal extreme of "it's about the money". Really something of a culture clash displayed in action here. |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 7:54 AM EDT |
>Sure seems as if the first above "Huh?" commentator to this is closer to the conservative extreme whereas the second "Huh?"ffer is really much closer to the liberal extreme of "it's about the money". Huh? I wish I had an idea of what you're referring to. |
| Abe Sep 24, 2007 9:08 AM EDT |
Quoting:But Mossberg was right--Linux is typically not for the mainstream.If Mossberg found couple issues to declare Linux not ready for mainstream, there are many more issues with Windows to declare it not ready for mainstream by anyone and rightly so. Quoting:Why does the Linux community have an identity crisis?The community does not have an identity crisis. It is you who sees it that way. The community is a diverse group and Linux is flexible and accommodating enough for all groups. You can make of Linux whatever you like as long as you abide by its license. The writer just doesn't comprehend FOSS community good enough, that is all. Quoting:When Torvalds started what would become Linux, he never wanted it to go mainstream...So, what is your point? Linus doesn't control FOSS any more than anyone else. Linus leads the development effort of the Kernel and that is about it. He doesn't dictate how to use it. As a matter of fact, Linus is more liberal than many. Quoting:The conservatives want Linux to stay Linux and the liberals want to make money. Call me a conservative, or call me what you will, but the liberals are off-base.That doesn't make sense. What is wrong with making money? The GPL itself allows you to do that. As long as you abide by its terms and spirit, you have no issue. Quoting:Sure, some of them say it's to take Linux away from the enterprise and towards the consumer market, but let's be honest with ourselves--it's about the money.Nonsense, Enterprise can use it, individuals can use it, developers can use it and enhance it too, vendors can sell FOSS based services. IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and others are already doing that. So what is the problem? Quoting:Stop trying to make it go mainstream and let it maintain its stance as the best advanced operating system in the industry.Like they say, "The best is for the last". This statement is the most senseless of all. Who said it can't be THE best advanced operating system in the industry and at the same time a mainstream? May be it is not right now but it is well on its way. Give time Mr. Give it time. |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 10:31 AM EDT |
>The community does not have an identity crisis. It is you who sees it that way. That is exactly right. Disagreement is rampant - and healthy. The really neat thing about FOSS is that it has "storm out" room. Mambo developers can storm out when they don't like things being done, begetting Joomla. X developers can storm out of XFree86 and form X.org. GNOME can start up as a refuge from KDE, only to shake hands later and work together on common needs. Hatchets can be sharpened only to be buried later. It's a dynamic and lively place - one of the things that gives it a leg up over the closed world. |
| azerthoth Sep 24, 2007 10:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:When Torvalds started what would become Linux, he never wanted it to go mainstream...When he wrote it he thought it would only be of interest to fellow hackers (his words). It's not that he didn't want it to go main stream, the idea never even crossed the event horizon at the time. He just knew that he didn't want it subverted and have it land in a corporate lock-up somewhere. On a side note, there is an identity crises of sorts, it comes from bandying the term FOSS around. In this I agree with RMS, Free Software and Open Source Software are two distinct but similar critters. Lumping them together only muddies the water in understanding the differences between the two. RMS is the defender of Free Software, Linus holds solid to Open Source Software, both men acknowledge the difference and the other mans stand and view point. So please, as RMS has asked, remove FOSS/FLOSS from your vocabularies. *edit* wow, when was the last time anyone saw me agreeing whole heartedly with RMS? */edit* |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 24, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
I deliberately use the sequence F/OSS, to denote Free _and_or_ Open. Is that ok? |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 10:57 AM EDT |
>In this I agree with RMS, Free Software and Open Source Software are two distinct but similar critters. So...if you make a list of open source software and a list of free software, how different will those lists be? |
| Abe Sep 24, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:That is exactly right. Disagreement is rampant - and healthy. The really neat thing about FOSS is that it has "storm out" room. ... Hatchets can be sharpened only to be buried later.I am glad you feel that way. You and I are perfect example, aren't we! :) |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 12:08 PM EDT |
>You and I are perfect example, aren't we! :) I agree halfway: I'm perfect. You'll do! ;0) |
| Abe Sep 24, 2007 12:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm perfect.Lucky for you it is the end of the day and about to head home. |
| dinotrac Sep 24, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
>Lucky for you it is the end of the day and about to head home. That and the being perfect thing. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 24, 2007 4:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Nowhere in the article does the author imply that con's patches have anything to do with making Linux too troublesome for the average user. Well, Don Reisinger points to WSJ's Walt Mossberg as to what's wrong with Linux. Walt's problems have exactly zero to do with Linux-the-kernel. He points out failures in Ubuntu-the-OS (GUI control for touchpad, ALSA problems, lack of codecs and iPod support). My guess is Don read the WSJ review, read the piece of news about Con's desktop-oriented kernel patch the surrounding discussion and thought he'd put one and one together. |
| tuxchick Sep 24, 2007 6:48 PM EDT |
Oh, Sander, now I understand. Like in the olden days when the ancients found a correlation between human sacrifice and good crops. Well duh, some things are as obvious as they seem, and one plus one really does equal 11! (that's sarcasm just in case anyone missed it) |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 25, 2007 4:04 AM EDT |
> Like in the olden days when the ancients found a correlation between human sacrifice and good crops The Federal Reserve still works this way. |
| ColonelPanik Sep 25, 2007 1:11 PM EDT |
Didn't read the article, skimmed the posts and I agree with all of you. Huh? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!