Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 72 of 72

Thread: Will The Catalyst Driver Work On Ubuntu 11.04 At Launch?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Nobody benefit from such a "contribution" except Ubuntu. I agree they had some minor projects accepted by wide community, but they usually produce thing nobody want to use
    Whats about upstart. But I do agree they dont contribute much besides their distribution, but I do also not ask why the gcc developers do not make a own distribution. Thats the point in opensource or free software you can make one thing and contribute it and do nothing else, where is the law or the paragraph in gpl that distributors have to make 100 other things than just ditribute?

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    If Ubuntu disappears in a moment, nobody from wide community - Fedora, RedHat, Opensuse, and many others - will notice. Only average Joe using ubuntu could be hit by this. No developers.
    If Opensuse disappear nobody but the small kde community will notice that (and all the opensuse users, that are not unimportant as the ubuntu community)
    I think that is short-thinking, ok a ubuntu user will not become a developer in no time, but maybe they someday start to translate some stuff or they become a target, more users make a plattform also more attractive for developers. And maybe some people start to make some propriatary software in the working time, and someday they then make some opensource stuff in the free time. But I also find it a good thing that more users find a way to linux, and are happy with it, because they are free. If you think freedom like rms you would be happy if people are (more) free than before and would see that as value itself.




    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Well, Novell did MS-Novell deal. Not Opensuse, which is independent community project. I do not know, whether you understand this, but Novell-Opensuse relationship is very different from Canonical-Ubuntu relationship where Shuttleworth and Canonical are dictators. And I think it is fair to see everything Novell did, not only to choose one or two controversial steps. Novell is in fact contributor no 2. among Linux vendors. Most of the contributions are general contributions into general projects.
    I did never say that ubuntu is the best way to go at all, but they have a good gnome-environment which most other distros dont have. (theming) its very round and they gain good packages from debian and have a good release-cycle time. Before ubuntu most other not-rolling release distros had longer releasetimes so thats one benefit, too. The main point behind ubuntu is they have good default settings/confs. And they have much support because its the most used distro for desktop.

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Vast majority of Opensuse users use KDE.
    yes ok thats on my viewpoint a minus, they conzentrate on kde as their main Desktop environment, I dont like kde so thats naturaly clear that I not like opensuse

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    XGL was the first. built in AIGLX came far way later. So I do not understand what did novell wrogn with XGL.
    But AIGLX is not developed by Novell its developed mainly by fedora. If Novell would instead developing this useless crap they could have made faster AIGLX, I can accept more that you make nothing than making some crap to try to force some stupid stuff to come up, not to see whats the right way and going it straight like in radeon vs radeonhd (there they did way to late check that they should switch their focus on radeon and stop developing radeonhd, which ended with a big fight so that this developers could not work together now. Thats stupid.


    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Good for you. I do not think Ubuntu is usable. In my opinion, it is broken. And I am not alone. I accept your opinion, nut I refuse it as a general fact.
    I have some issues (decitions and to less moral in some points) unity, mozilla instead of iceweasel..., ubuntu one... but I would never move to opensuse, but maybe to debian or archlinux or something else, since gentoo sucks its harder, I dont think right now that archlinux is there where gentoo was on its best times. but thats another discussion, debian sucks a bit because there long release-times, if I have some time I will maybe make the efford to change to another distro because of moral issues but not because of technical issues, ubuntu is not perfekt, but better and faster usable then all the other distros (if you dont like kde).

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    I like this argument so much, because it gives me the best ammunition. How do you like Canonical's approach? They really like mono, they support mono, they had many mono advocates employed in Canonical. They ship mono by default, they displace standard applications with mono derived on their installation CD. Where is you critics now? heh?
    Yes, but they didn't create Mono. Novell/Ximian did, which means they are way more evil.

    Fact is, opensuse tries too hard to mimic Ubuntu - and fails. Everything it strives to do, Ubuntu does better (more user friendly, better out-the-box experience, wider software selection).

    Let me give a notice to you, that Opensuse even does not install mono by default! So why is opensuse worse than ubuntu, when ubuntu - according to your standards - act worse than opensuse?
    You don't understand, I like Mono. It's evil, it's fast and it brings the trolls out every time! Win win.

    Besides, Ubuntu didn't develop this evil piece of software so they cannot act worse, by definition.

    That's subjective. Same applied to many distributions (like Mandrake) in past. The only thing Canonical did, is marketing. Canonical in fact is marketing company.
    In the present, however, Ubuntu is the most user-friendly distro by far. Yes, some distros may be better in specific things, but Ubuntu is the only distro that tries to be usable to non-techies.

    I would like to emphasis here, that Ubuntu is not vital project today, because it works on credit of Shuttleworth money. There are no other resources behind it. There is no other such project without sustainable development. Canonicals model is not sustainable. It is not comparable neither with Debian style projects, neither with Opensuse/Fedora style projects. So how can ubuntu bring anything?
    So distros need corporate money otherwise they cannot exist? On what money do debian/opensuse/fedora feed? Why do you think that Ubuntu couldn't function in a community-driven manner if Canonical went away?

    Besides, there are strong forces who would see to Ubuntu's continuance. Google is developing an Ubuntu-derived distro, for instance - even if the parent distro went away, it's legacy would remain.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •