Unity? (was: What's your favorite distro, and why?)
ddavidegli at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 04:01:04 MST 2013
On December 16, 2013, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Hello, double standard!
You're right. That was a double standard. My bad on that. And I agree it's
likely easier to find Linux on the Ubuntu site that the Android site. I
wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Sorry. My bad again.
> Hilarious. What, exactly, is the difference between some random
> distro that Gnome has integrated into it and a random distro that
> Gnome maintains and integrates its software with? Why is something
> suddenly so distasteful when it has 'OS' tacked on the name and some
> Gnome volunteers are doing it instead of some random volunteers under
> some distro name?
That's not what I meant, and I think you're making a bit of a jump. Or not
understanding what I meant. Look again at what I said. I specifically said
that having a distro based on Gnome would be painful for me. Not that it
would be "bad" or "unacceptable" but bad __FOR ME__. I know tons of people
like Gnome. I don't. That's my personal personal preference. I specifically
said "I'm sure other people will go for it, but that's one for me to mark
on my Must Avoid list." Notice I keep referring to ME on that one. I'm not
talking about the NAME of the distro. In fact I specifically said "naming
aside". I have no qualms with the Gnome folks making a full distro, or even
calling it Gnome OS if they want. But if it's a full Gnome distro the
chances are slight that there will be packages for other Window Managers
than Gnome easily accessible. I don't like Gnome, so that means I'm not
interested in "Gnome OS", even if it was called "Gnome Linux OS" or "Linux
Gnome OS" or something similar that clearly labeled it as Linux. That's all
that I meant to convey.
> See, here's your problem. You have turned 'Linux' into a religion and
> elevated to kernel into some holy thing above all the other bits of
> the software that you use on a daily basis. You apparently care more
> about the branding and project goals than what anyone is actually
> contributing. You are raging about things that, frankly, you haven't
> bothered to understand beyond the very surface appearance.
Perhaps you're right on some of this. That was most certainly not my
intention. And I have been known to go way overboard at times. I certainly
don't mean to elevate the kernel above the rest of the parts. Most people,
myself included, will say "Linux" when we refer to the whole distro.
Perhaps that's not quite correct, but that's how it commonly happens.
That's what I meant. I've always said "the Linux Kernel" or even just "the
kernel" when that's the specific part I was referring to. Perhaps I should
be more careful. In a way, this is a holy war for me. I absolutely despise
Windows, nor am I a fan of Microsoft in general. So the more people I can
show the way to a Non-M$ world, the better I like it. I know a lot of
people will disagree with me on that. Some will say perhaps that while
Linux is better, Windows isn't THAT bad. Fine. To each their own. Until I
see a total redesign with the consumer in mind, and not what M$ thinks is
the best for them, I will continue to bash M$ and Windows, and to praise
Linux Distributions (to be clearly separated from the kernel itself). But
that does not mean that I am okay in looking only at one single point of
information, like the name, and drawing all sorts of negative conclusions
from that. For that, I say "sorry."
> No one's twisting your arm and making you use
> Ubuntu if you don't like it.
Nor was my intention to make it sound as if they were. Sounds as if a lot
of what I meant to say came across wrong. Canonical has every right to
brand their Distro as they see fit. And I have no doubt that they have done
a lot of good for the kernel community and the GNU/Linux (again, separating
from just the kernel) community at large. Saying otherwise was not my
intent. This is sounding like I really put my foot in my mouth. Sorry.
Anyone have a Pry Bar so I can get it out? :)
> Your understanding is almost entirely incorrect. Acceptable naming
> conventions for a fork are not codified anywhere, and they tend to
> be based on the maintainers of the code.
Well, that would explain why my point was so misunderstood. I was stating
things based on this incorrect understanding of Forking. If it's true (and
I'm not trying to say I don't believe you!) that names of forks are so
loosely changeable then that modifies the entire point of my original post.
If I'd realized that the rules were so, I would never have said what I did.
In this case, it's not so much being an "evangelist" as simply operating
from an incorrect premise due to not having correct facts at hand. A
problem that I hope has been remedied. I was simply operating on what I was
told the last time I got deeply involved in the code of a port from
<project A> to <project B>, which I freely admit was around 15+ years ago.
Sorry for the confusion.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 06:16 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> > Your previous emails all come across as pure Ubuntu bashing using
> > reasoning not supported by any evidence. This is disingenuous,
> > especially when the thread was started by a person unfamiliar with
> > Unity and was just looking for some details about it.
> Fair points, Lonnie. Definitely another reminder for me of being
> careful how e-mails come across. I was definitely surprised by your
> response at first (I merely welcomed the debate). Guess I dragged it
> off topic.
> Levi, thanks for the clarifications on the technologies underlying
> Unity, present and future. I tend to agree with your assessment of
> Ubuntu remaining compatible other desktops, X11, etc. I have a hunch
> even Wayland will be supported eventually as well. If anything, out of
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
More information about the PLUG