Linux Has begun it's assent!

Daniel~ said:
Fedora was what my friends most used .
...
Mint was my salvation!
Click to expand...
Well yes, that was somewhat inevitable:

RedHat discovered that they could make money out of this Linux lark, and decided to pour their millions into the newly forged RedHat Enterprise Linux. RHEL is supposed to be conservative, solid, safe, and ready for business. In order to keep using the enthusiastic public as guinea pigs, RedHat thus created Fedora, which lives out on the bleeding edge of RH development, which meant it adopted avahi, pulseaudio, systemd, and various other innovations while they were still a hot mess.

Mint's philosophy was a little different. It sat on top of Ubuntu, which was itself already a user-focused distro rather than a nerd-focused one. Mint then took one step further back to take the view that everything about the system should be finished, polished, stable, and good. This gave time for all the bugs introduced by RedHat's wrecking crew (among others) to be ironed out and the result cleaned up, polished, and chrome plated.

In essence, you're comparing the before and after photos of Ikea furniture...
 
cant say how much i enjoy seeing you again.
thanks for you little tutorial
a bit of history never hurts ';o)
 
It's not even history - just a statement of fact. One of the great strengths of the GNU/Linux/Desktop/Application ensemble is the breadth and depth of choice and variety in all things. One of the great weaknesses of of the GNU/Linux/Desktop/Application ensemble is also the breadth and depth of choice and variety in all things.

Given that pretty much every other computer, phone, tablet, or device that people buy comes with a fully-configured OS and user interface preinstalled, and that those user interfaces actually have very limited degrees of freedom to customise, the wider public are simply not prepared for what awaits them if they start down the path of Linux: do you use a tiling window manager like TR favours, or something that looks more like Windows or MacOS, or something straight out of sci-fi like Hyprland... or recapture your lost youth with AmiWM. Do you like everything to be just a little clunky, like Enlightenment, or as basic as they come but fast (KDE Trinity, Mate, XCFE...)

Are you prepared to accept that if a program or device you want to use doesn't work out of the box, you have to put in a little effort? You can't just download a driver from the manufacturer's website and click "install" for hardware. For software, you can't just grab any other distro's version of the same software.

The whole reason why MacOS, Windows, iPhones and Android, and other closed shops do so well with users is that, in having a less free system, they're instead free from choice and effort. They know what they're getting - even if it's shit.
 
Daniel~ said:
this cannot be good

Click to expand...
NO.

Just...no.

1) As far as I know, no one, not even MS can buy Debian, as Debian isn't 'owned' by any one person or organization. The Debian trademark is owned by 'Software in the Public Interest', I think, but that's about it.
2) Even if someone could buy Debian, all they'd be able to get is the rights to the Debian name. Debian itself is 100% free and open software. All of the code is GPL compliant, meaning that the authors of the code retain the original copyrights and retain rights to the code, except as they choose to assign those rights to someone else.
3) Because Debian is licensed under the GPL, anyone who purchased Debian would have no legal leverage to extract royalties or licenses from anyone using Debian, except insofar as the Debian name itself is concerned (and maybe not even then).

So, no, Debian has not been bought. This statement appears periodically. It's either due to idiots parroting unfounded rumors, or bad-faith actors trying to sow confusion and discord, but either way it is just wrong.

As near as I can tell, the statement appears to have its roots in the inclusion by Microsoft of a Debian derivative in its 'Windows Subsystem for Linux' or WSL, which allows users to run a sandboxed version of Linux on Windows. This is nothing new, and is in fact an outgrowth of its far older 'Subsystem For Unix' which has existed since at least the 90's. (I remember playing with it on Windows NT in about '96 or so)
 
Last edited:
this guy really had me going!
what a shirty thing to do.

i was thinking every thing gizmo said, butt thinking without certainty.

God is great God is good
 
Daniel~ said:
this cannot be good

Click to expand...
Dan, I know I haven't been active for a while, but I still love ya ;);) And I do watch over you from afar...

It's gotta be a prank or joke, there's no way this would happen, even legally I don't think it's possible. What's the source of the video?

[I PROMISE to get you all up to date when time permits. I miss all of you dearly]


EDIT: I'm too slow, I see the others have already weighed in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top