Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 164

Thread: Kubuntu, KDE Has Little Hope For Ubuntu's Mir

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    Arch breaks with updates every now and then. systemd transition is enough for me to steer clear.
    openSUSE is very buggy. KDE builds may be better but hardware drivers work awful. I steer clear at least until they get HP printer support fixed.
    And I am NOT going to spend days compiling KDE on Gentoo (on my Core i7-920 box >400 packages of KDE took 36-48 hrs to compile and install).

    After using all three I am back on Ubuntu and not looking back.
    Arch is not made for substandard users, so what? If you have at least some sort of understanding of your OS it's not a problem.

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akka View Post
    Arch is not made for substandard users, so what? If you have at least some sort of understanding of your OS it's not a problem.
    It's not about "substandard users". Not many people wish to spend countless hours tweaking their system and rightfully so.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    systemd transition is enough for me to steer clear.
    That's your own damn fault, it was very well documented.
    This type of update is like an ubuntu version upgrade (12.10 => 13.04), I don't know of a single instance where that didn't go wrong at some point.

    Listing contractors is not helpfull. Contractors are by defintion NOT risk takers.
    Ok, I'll stop. You're right, they're not risk takers. But they do get the necessary groundwork done. The same Red Hat did with d-bus (based on DCOP, a KDE3 technology).

    Personal opion has no relevancy.
    What the hell? People will compare to other products out there, and that is opinion. It is relevant.
    Arch is not made for substandard users
    Careful there (to not fall into Shuttleworth's arguments). Word it a different way, like "Arch is for technical/advanced users". But I agree.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    That's your own damn fault, it was very well documented.
    This type of update is like an ubuntu version upgrade (12.10 => 13.04), I don't know of a single instance where that didn't go wrong at some point.
    Strange, because my upgrade went very well and was FULLY AUTOMATED. Not like this shit: https://www.archlinux.org/news/netctl-is-now-in-core/

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    Arch breaks with updates every now and then. systemd transition is enough for me to steer clear.
    well ubuntu breaks too between releases, raring was released with samba4 packages totally broken which give a lot headaches [force new options in smb.conf but modules aren't build inside the package <-- just genius] and mit/openafs got some half brained patch in ubuntu and went psycho so you need to remove it with dpkg and install the debian sid one manually.

    Windows suffer lot of breakage between upgrade too, my point is no OS is invulnerable to breakage once in a while

    well systemd is easy enough since arch and sabayon add services file automagically[in gentoo is by hand but still service file are extremely easy to make], so i don't get what all that drama is about it with systemd

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ворот93 View Post
    Strange, because my upgrade went very well and was FULLY AUTOMATED. Not like this shit: https://www.archlinux.org/news/netctl-is-now-in-core/
    Ok, now I know of one. The fully automated part is uncalled for, as Archlinux has never ever stated that updates won't require user intervention. As a matter of fact, that statement completely removes you from the target audience. From the Arch FAQ :
    Q) Why would I not want to use Arch?
    <snip>
    you believe an operating system should configure itself, run out of the box, and include a complete default set of software and desktop environment on the installation media.
    Whatever. Go on about how ubuntu is amazing and this and that. I couldn't care less what you use and what you think of other distros. What I do care about is free software, and good solutions. Mir IMO isn't a good solution, and shame on canonical for creating (trying to) a rift in the FOSS world.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serafean View Post
    Ok, now I know of one. The fully automated part is uncalled for, as Archlinux has never ever stated that updates won't require user intervention. As a matter of fact, that statement completely removes you from the target audience. From the Arch FAQ :

    Whatever. Go on about how ubuntu is amazing and this and that. I couldn't care less what you use and what you think of other distros. What I do care about is free software, and good solutions. Mir IMO isn't a good solution, and shame on canonical for creating (trying to) a rift in the FOSS world.
    Which is why Ubuntu is the only Linux-based solution viable for wider, less geeky audience. Good day.

Posting Permissions

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