My favorite line in the whole thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by RAOF
(upstart came first, Red Hat adopted it, then systemd came along claiming that there were technical issues with upstart. So this is almost an exact mirror, with the shoe on the other foot.)
For the anti-BSD trolls:
This is the first display server I know of to be licensed as (L)GPL3. I doubt it will be popular anywhere outside Linux (there, did I irritate anyone yet?) and Hurd.
...Meanwhile, I'm sticking with X11, and sysvinit (well, and bb init!).
As for the secure thing, you can turn off SELinux if you prefer (I am assuming that is what you are referring to). Now, this may be more than a new user wants, but then I never said it was necessarily the best for new users, just that it's "issues" are severally overstated.
When it comes to support, I just ended up at the Arch Wiki anyway. That is why I am on Arch now. ;)
Red Hat is the primary force behind most linux technologies/infrastructures. Without them the desktop would have been painfully unusable. I really hope they can bolster the gnome project though. I would have donated to them, but I don't want my money to be wasted by some freetard hacker who doesn't know a thing about user interface design. Maybe I'll donate to the gparted project. They seem to be serving a very focused, pragmatic purpose.
So systemd is about breaking down walled gardens. Mir is about building walled gardens.
this page) especially compared to the Gentoo ones, or the convenience of a gui/auto-detection. Of course installs are so rare that it doesn't matter for most people. I am seeing the Arch wiki showing up in searches a lot more, like Gentoo used to (eg the arch page for btrfs is my 4th result for that term). Part of my problem is that the arch netboot kernel hangs in VirtualBox during boot most of the time.
On Ubuntu I use these instructions to get rid of all the Ubuntu specific stuff and get a more genuine Gnome experience. If that approach doesn't work in 13.04 then I will definitely quite Ubuntu, almost certainly for Arch. The only remaining problem is why to recommend to new users since I still don't have a better answer than Ubuntu.
As far THESE technical problems... So far, Krh, David Airlie and Daniel Stone have all come back with: "FUD until proven otherwise."
I've found Canonical is just an Apple-wannabe for a while.
But it will never become another Apple because it has never invested as many human resources as Apple had.
To get a better UI, Apple replaced X server many years ago. But what about Canonical? It just adopted compiz to attract users with the fancy but useless graphics.