Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
G+ Advocacy discussion
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Snit
May 17, 2013, 9:51:37 PM5/17/13
to
They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
be just minor variations of each other.
Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
and more to allow this to happen.
And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
"advocates" admit I am right.
--
Brad cc Wiggins proves he is an ID forging pathological liar
<http://goo.gl/eC1qa>
be just minor variations of each other.
Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
and more to allow this to happen.
And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
"advocates" admit I am right.
--
Brad cc Wiggins proves he is an ID forging pathological liar
<http://goo.gl/eC1qa>
flatfish+++
May 18, 2013, 7:38:10 AM5/18/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:51:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
> and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
> and more to allow this to happen.
>
> And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
> "advocates" admit I am right.
All of these items that keep appearing in the G+ group just confirm
> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
> and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
> and more to allow this to happen.
>
> And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
> "advocates" admit I am right.
what I have suspected for years and that is both sides probably agree
more than disagree. When in an advocacy group however, at least on
the Linux side, the herd mentality prevails and they will deny and
oppose *anything* the other side says.
--
flatfish+++
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Snit
May 18, 2013, 10:55:12 AM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/13 4:38 AM, in article 1qvsnnschu3bi$.gscxbkxm...@40tude.net,
how RonB completely freaked out when I showed him his distro of choice
worked as I predicted and not as he claimed it would. That was the start of
his claiming to KF me and to lash out as strongly as he does. He has calmed
down some, but he was clearly angry for years.
--
"It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what
improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own
component more useful and successful." -- Richard Stallman
"flatfish+++" <phlat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:51:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
>> and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
>> and more to allow this to happen.
>>
>> And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
>> "advocates" admit I am right.
>
> All of these items that keep appearing in the G+ group just confirm
> what I have suspected for years and that is both sides probably agree
> more than disagree. When in an advocacy group however, at least on
> the Linux side, the herd mentality prevails and they will deny and
> oppose *anything* the other side says.
Absolutely correct. Their pride gets in the way in a public forum. Look at
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:51:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Hmmmm, much as I have been saying that distros should be more diversified
>> and offer more choice - and how the open source ecosystem is maturing more
>> and more to allow this to happen.
>>
>> And I am vilified in COLA for saying this - but behind closed doors the
>> "advocates" admit I am right.
>
> All of these items that keep appearing in the G+ group just confirm
> what I have suspected for years and that is both sides probably agree
> more than disagree. When in an advocacy group however, at least on
> the Linux side, the herd mentality prevails and they will deny and
> oppose *anything* the other side says.
how RonB completely freaked out when I showed him his distro of choice
worked as I predicted and not as he claimed it would. That was the start of
his claiming to KF me and to lash out as strongly as he does. He has calmed
down some, but he was clearly angry for years.
--
"It is often hard to persuade the developers of one component to do what
improves the system as a whole rather than what will make their own
component more useful and successful." -- Richard Stallman
TomB
May 19, 2013, 2:22:57 AM5/19/13
to
On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
> be just minor variations of each other.
Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
behind the distro wants it to be.
--
You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when
your shift is over you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson.
~ Malone, The Untouchables
> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
> be just minor variations of each other.
behind the distro wants it to be.
--
You just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when
your shift is over you go home alive. Here endeth the lesson.
~ Malone, The Untouchables
Snit
May 19, 2013, 2:39:37 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/13 11:22 PM, in article 201305190...@usenet.drumscum.be,
the COLA "advocates" say one thing in COLA and have completely different
views in their "closed" G+ group.
For what it is worth I agree with you - open source software is open so
people and companies can do with it as they please (as long as they stay
within the license). This includes Apple and MS and Canonical and Google and
your Aunt Bertha. Anyone.
The debate on the G+ group, though, is if the open source ecosystem would be
better off if there was more innovation and less "carbon copy" distros... if
things in the open source community would be better if different groups
worked together more.
As I have been suggesting.
Behind closed doors even the COLA "advocates" have no problem with views
very similar to what I express (and are expressed by many, many people in
the open source community).
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
> behind the distro wants it to be.
So why not tell that to Dietrich and gang? This is the point I keep making
> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
> behind the distro wants it to be.
the COLA "advocates" say one thing in COLA and have completely different
views in their "closed" G+ group.
For what it is worth I agree with you - open source software is open so
people and companies can do with it as they please (as long as they stay
within the license). This includes Apple and MS and Canonical and Google and
your Aunt Bertha. Anyone.
The debate on the G+ group, though, is if the open source ecosystem would be
better off if there was more innovation and less "carbon copy" distros... if
things in the open source community would be better if different groups
worked together more.
As I have been suggesting.
Behind closed doors even the COLA "advocates" have no problem with views
very similar to what I express (and are expressed by many, many people in
the open source community).
--
Summary of cc's statistical BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7rwazxw>
Details on cc's "outliers" BS: <http://tinyurl.com/84r3ypq>
More on cc's ignorance about outliers: <http://tinyurl.com/7vyhttc>
Four method compared to cc's absurd claims: <http://tinyurl.com/7efkuzm>
Details on cc's sigma and R^2 BS: <http://tinyurl.com/7vambev>
Chris Ahlstrom
May 19, 2013, 7:19:11 AM5/19/13
to
After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
(that is, undiversified) distros.
> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
> behind the distro wants it to be.
Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
"vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
"Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy
from them," the former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser
said yesterday, when asked for his thoughts on Microsoft's forthcoming line of
security software.
-- Richard A. Clarke, 2005
> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>> be just minor variations of each other.
(that is, undiversified) distros.
> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
> behind the distro wants it to be.
He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
"vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
"Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy
from them," the former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser
said yesterday, when asked for his thoughts on Microsoft's forthcoming line of
security software.
-- Richard A. Clarke, 2005
Snit
May 19, 2013, 1:59:34 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/13 4:19 AM, in article knac80$crq$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg>
And what is said is more than just that people should stop making such
"cookie-cutter" distros, but that doing so is harming innovation in the open
source ecosystem... and that this lack of innovation is "probably why the
the number of distros is reducing."
It references this article: <http://bit.ly/12EQUty>. In that article the
term "ecosystem" is specifically used:
-----
Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the ecosystem
or might they dilute the strength of those that precede them causing
confusion and less innovation?
-----
And yet in COLA this idea is attacked and ridiculed by the COLA "herd".
Behind closed doors, however, the COLA "herd" shows no problems with the
idea that the open source community might be better served if people focused
on real innovation and not their egos in making cookie-cutter distros.
Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely noting
how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another elsewhere. They are
inconsistent in their public views / actions and those they show "behind
closed doors".
>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>
> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
> "vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
I have the exact conversation shown above. And note how you claim it is a
lie merely to quote what the G+ folks say. Notice the bottom quote in the
discussion where someone in the G+ group specifically speaks of the lack of
innovation leading to fewer distros. If there was more innovation and more
ability to diversify their would be more diversification.
But in COLA, this is deemed a "lie". In G+ it is openly admitted to.
Interesting dichotomy.
--
"There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major
reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to
be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
-- Linus Torvalds
<OFee...@teleworm.us> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
Here is the actual discussion:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg>
And what is said is more than just that people should stop making such
"cookie-cutter" distros, but that doing so is harming innovation in the open
source ecosystem... and that this lack of innovation is "probably why the
the number of distros is reducing."
It references this article: <http://bit.ly/12EQUty>. In that article the
term "ecosystem" is specifically used:
-----
Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the ecosystem
or might they dilute the strength of those that precede them causing
confusion and less innovation?
-----
And yet in COLA this idea is attacked and ridiculed by the COLA "herd".
Behind closed doors, however, the COLA "herd" shows no problems with the
idea that the open source community might be better served if people focused
on real innovation and not their egos in making cookie-cutter distros.
Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely noting
how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another elsewhere. They are
inconsistent in their public views / actions and those they show "behind
closed doors".
>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>
> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
> "vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
lie merely to quote what the G+ folks say. Notice the bottom quote in the
discussion where someone in the G+ group specifically speaks of the lack of
innovation leading to fewer distros. If there was more innovation and more
ability to diversify their would be more diversification.
But in COLA, this is deemed a "lie". In G+ it is openly admitted to.
Interesting dichotomy.
--
"There are 'extremists' in the free software world, but that's one major
reason why I don't call what I do 'free software' any more. I don't want to
be associated with the people for whom it's about exclusion and hatred."
-- Linus Torvalds
TomB
May 20, 2013, 8:30:23 AM5/20/13
to
On 05/19/2013 01:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
innovation. It are two completely different things.
>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>
> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
upstream thing). Personally I feel that people should do whatever they
feel like. Want to cooperate and move forward as one? Okay, great. Want
to do something completely different? Great as well. It's all possible
and no one should hold back. And the driving forces behind the various
distributions can take whatever they like, cut out the weeds and grow
something good. This stuff works.
chrisv
May 20, 2013, 9:47:19 AM5/20/13
to
TomB wrote:
>People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>innovation. It are two completely different things.
Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron",
>People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>innovation. It are two completely different things.
attack Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side
of the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from
lack of cooperation or whatever.
Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
(waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it
both ways!
--
"Windows works for them - and by screaming at them that it doesn't
until you're blue in the face wont change a thing." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
William Poaster
May 20, 2013, 10:16:36 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:19:11 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not
>>> all be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
Which just goes to show that they have NO idea about GNU/Linux or the GPL.
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not
>>> all be just minor variations of each other.
>
> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
> (that is, undiversified) distros.
>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>
> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for "vilifying"
> Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
A: Two. One to screw in the bulb, and another to install shine2000.exe,
shine2000.sys, lightbulb2000.exe, bright2000.sys, bulb-replace.com
and update the socket BIOS.
William Poaster
May 20, 2013, 10:31:12 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:47:19 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> TomB wrote:
>
>>People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>>that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>>innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron", attack
> Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>
> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side of
> the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from lack of
> cooperation or whatever.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it both
> ways!
And what would the trolling fuckwit do in the case of CERN & FERMI who
> TomB wrote:
>
>>People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>>that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>>innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron", attack
> Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>
> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side of
> the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from lack of
> cooperation or whatever.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it both
> ways!
have developed their own Linux sytems from the original core?
"One of the goals of Scientific Linux is to allow it to be modified easily
so that Lab's, Universities, or whoever wants, can easily create their own
distribution based off of Scientific Linux. In the past we have called
these "Sites" but nowadays people have been calling them "Spins".
Scientific-Linux CERN
Scientific-Linux FERMI
Scientific-Linux DESY (Based on Scientific-Linux, & supported for 10 years)
HELiOS by GE Healthcare (Based on Scientific-Linux)
Maybe he should call his 'old pals' at CERN & tell them they shouldn't
diversify, & *must* adhere to "Hadron's Culling Rules" & everyone must
co-operate on The One True Linux! <snicker>
Ein volk, ein rei...oh, hang on, didn't someone
else say that in the mid 20th Century..
--
Kaspersky VirusScan 7.0: WARNING!
Windows found: Remove it (Y/N) ?
"Threatening an atheist with hellfire,
is no more effective than a hippie
threatening to punch him in his aura."
Snit
May 20, 2013, 11:01:15 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 5:30 AM, in article knd4pe$je7$1...@dont-email.me, "TomB"
> Personally I feel that people should do whatever they
> feel like. Want to cooperate and move forward as one? Okay, great. Want
> to do something completely different? Great as well. It's all possible
> and no one should hold back. And the driving forces behind the various
> distributions can take whatever they like, cut out the weeds and grow
> something good. This stuff works.
>
>> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
>> "vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
Proof Brad cc Wiggins is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/19/2013 01:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
>> (that is, undiversified) distros.
>
> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
>>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>>
>> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
>> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> As I recall it, he advocates "standardization" (I guess more or less an
> upstream thing).
I advocate for cooperation to allow for more diversity and better products.
> On 05/19/2013 01:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not all
>>>> be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
>> (that is, undiversified) distros.
>
> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
>>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>>
>> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
>> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> As I recall it, he advocates "standardization" (I guess more or less an
> upstream thing).
> Personally I feel that people should do whatever they
> feel like. Want to cooperate and move forward as one? Okay, great. Want
> to do something completely different? Great as well. It's all possible
> and no one should hold back. And the driving forces behind the various
> distributions can take whatever they like, cut out the weeds and grow
> something good. This stuff works.
>
>> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for
>> "vilifying" Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
Proof Brad cc Wiggins is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
Snit
May 20, 2013, 11:02:53 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 7:16 AM, in article
pan.2013.05.20....@induh-vidual.net, "William Poaster"
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg/>
Interesting.
>>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>>
>> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
>> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> Snit lies, what else is new.
And here you are posting just to please the herd. I have shown exactly what
was said. There is no "lie" to show the exact discussion.
>> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for "vilifying"
>> Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
Proof Mark Bilk's http://cosmicpenguin.com/911/ is nothing but silly
fiction: <http://bit.ly/Y741mf>.
Using Bilk's own "logic" he posts his lies because the Underground
Marshmallow People pay him to.
pan.2013.05.20....@induh-vidual.net, "William Poaster"
<w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:19:11 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not
>>>> all be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
>> (that is, undiversified) distros.
>
> Which just goes to show that they have NO idea about GNU/Linux or the GPL.
And these are the G+ Advocates you are speaking of:
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:19:11 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>>> They keep talking about how distros should be more diversified and not
>>>> all be just minor variations of each other.
>>
>> Actually what they're saying is people should stop making cookie-cutter
>> (that is, undiversified) distros.
>
> Which just goes to show that they have NO idea about GNU/Linux or the GPL.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg/>
Interesting.
>>> Actually the only thing a distro "should be" is what the driving force
>>> behind the distro wants it to be.
>>
>> Besides, Snit is lying about what he said about "diversifying" distros.
>> He's claimed the exact *opposite*.
>
> Snit lies, what else is new.
was said. There is no "lie" to show the exact discussion.
>> Even if he hadn't though, there's plenty of other reasons for "vilifying"
>> Snit. Except that he loves the attention.
--
fiction: <http://bit.ly/Y741mf>.
Using Bilk's own "logic" he posts his lies because the Underground
Marshmallow People pay him to.
TomB
May 20, 2013, 12:10:33 PM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
8<
> -----
> Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the
> ecosystem or might they dilute the strength of those that
> precede them causing confusion and less innovation?
> -----
share *your own* thoughts on the topic? Do you think that "cookie
cutter" distros harm the ecosystem? If so, why? And can you come up
with some examples where the ecosystem is being weakened by those
so-called "cookie cutter" distros?
Personally I think it's nonsense. Having distros based on others
pushes development and the introduction of new ideas and ways of doing
things.
A great example is Gentoo's portage, which now is the foundation on
which Google builts their Chrome OS. It's very reasonable to state
that there would be no Chrome OS as we know it without Gentoo and the
innovation it brought with its built system.
Also noteworthy is Ubuntu, which used to be more or less a Debian
clone (and for a huge part still is, by the way). It brought us the
upstart init system (adopted by some others) and a radically different
UI called Unity, none of which would've existed if Canonical hadn't
created yet another distro based on Debian.
Fedora is a cookie cut from Red Hat with the explicit purpose to be a
testbed for new ideas and development. A lot of the good stuff in the
commercial Red Hat distributions comes from the hard community work
done in Fedora.
Thanks to Mint (still largely an Ubuntu "cookie") we now have both
Cinnamon *and* Mate, giving us even more diversity in the GNU/Linux
ecosystem.
I could go on and on, because the list of great examples is literally
endless.
--
You ever notice how all the prices end in nine?
Damn, that's eerie...
~ Dante Hicks
8<
> -----
> Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the
> ecosystem or might they dilute the strength of those that
> precede them causing confusion and less innovation?
> -----
> Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely
> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
> those they show "behind closed doors".
Instead of focusing on what (you think that) other think, why not
> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
> those they show "behind closed doors".
share *your own* thoughts on the topic? Do you think that "cookie
cutter" distros harm the ecosystem? If so, why? And can you come up
with some examples where the ecosystem is being weakened by those
so-called "cookie cutter" distros?
Personally I think it's nonsense. Having distros based on others
pushes development and the introduction of new ideas and ways of doing
things.
A great example is Gentoo's portage, which now is the foundation on
which Google builts their Chrome OS. It's very reasonable to state
that there would be no Chrome OS as we know it without Gentoo and the
innovation it brought with its built system.
Also noteworthy is Ubuntu, which used to be more or less a Debian
clone (and for a huge part still is, by the way). It brought us the
upstart init system (adopted by some others) and a radically different
UI called Unity, none of which would've existed if Canonical hadn't
created yet another distro based on Debian.
Fedora is a cookie cut from Red Hat with the explicit purpose to be a
testbed for new ideas and development. A lot of the good stuff in the
commercial Red Hat distributions comes from the hard community work
done in Fedora.
Thanks to Mint (still largely an Ubuntu "cookie") we now have both
Cinnamon *and* Mate, giving us even more diversity in the GNU/Linux
ecosystem.
I could go on and on, because the list of great examples is literally
endless.
--
You ever notice how all the prices end in nine?
Damn, that's eerie...
~ Dante Hicks
chrisv
May 20, 2013, 12:22:44 PM5/20/13
to
TomB wrote:
>> Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely
>> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
>> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
>> those they show "behind closed doors".
>
>Instead of focusing on what (you think that) other think, why not
>share *your own* thoughts on the topic?
Why would anyone want to read what that shit's alleged thoughts are?
>> Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely
>> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
>> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
>> those they show "behind closed doors".
>
>Instead of focusing on what (you think that) other think, why not
>share *your own* thoughts on the topic?
Of course, its spew above is *nothing* but *lies*, attacking advocates
of being dishonest or deceitful. The only "inconsistency", outside of
reasonable differences of opinions, is the way that filthy liar
"interprets" what has been said.
--
"it was an OS before being distributed he also says" - "Snit"
Snit
May 20, 2013, 12:31:08 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 9:22 AM, in article m5jkp85t4f9ce7t9i...@4ax.com,
See how chrisv avoids talking about technology so he can go on the attack to
please the herd.
Amazing to watch!
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 � it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
please the herd.
Amazing to watch!
--
"It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of age 15 � it is
normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex." -- Richard Stallman
Snit
May 20, 2013, 12:37:25 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 9:10 AM, in article 201305201...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
value but I think people have every right to make them.
> Do you think that "cookie cutter" distros harm the ecosystem?
The ecosystem itself - no. Adoption of Linux on the desktop, perhaps - based
on the confusion and in some cases the quality of the distro.
> If so, why? And can you come up with some examples where the ecosystem is
> being weakened by those so-called "cookie cutter" distros?
I have not said the ecosystem is weakened by such distros so I think it
would be odd for me to list reasons why they do what I have not say they do.
> Personally I think it's nonsense. Having distros based on others
> pushes development and the introduction of new ideas and ways of doing
> things.
That can happen. Heck, Ubuntu is based on Debian and Mint on Ubuntu (or it
was - have they gone to full Debian base now?)
> A great example is Gentoo's portage, which now is the foundation on
> which Google builts their Chrome OS. It's very reasonable to state
> that there would be no Chrome OS as we know it without Gentoo and the
> innovation it brought with its built system.
No argument here. And I have spoken often of the value of Chrome OS. But I
do not think it is a cookie cutter distro - it is quite different than
others!
> Also noteworthy is Ubuntu, which used to be more or less a Debian
> clone (and for a huge part still is, by the way). It brought us the
> upstart init system (adopted by some others) and a radically different
> UI called Unity, none of which would've existed if Canonical hadn't
> created yet another distro based on Debian.
I used Ubuntu as an example, above. Is that one of the distros Dietrich
claims is a "cookie cutter" distro?
> Fedora is a cookie cut from Red Hat with the explicit purpose to be a
> testbed for new ideas and development. A lot of the good stuff in the
> commercial Red Hat distributions comes from the hard community work
> done in Fedora.
Does Deitrich list that as one of his cookie cutter distros?
> Thanks to Mint (still largely an Ubuntu "cookie") we now have both
> Cinnamon *and* Mate, giving us even more diversity in the GNU/Linux
> ecosystem.
All fine by me.
> I could go on and on, because the list of great examples is literally
> endless.
You listed distros that lead to things being added to the ecosystem. I do
not think that is what Dietrich means, but I suggest you ask him directly. I
do not want to speak for him. Here is the conversation I was in reference
to: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg>
There is also a post to his hobby site.
--
"Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a parrot to have sex
with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to have sex with a human. So what?
Others feel that all sex is disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> -----
>> Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the
>> ecosystem or might they dilute the strength of those that
>> precede them causing confusion and less innovation?
>> -----
>
>> Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely
>> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
>> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
>> those they show "behind closed doors".
>
> Instead of focusing on what (you think that) other think, why not
> share *your own* thoughts on the topic?
I have. And hint at them, above. I think many of the distros are not of much
> On 2013-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> -----
>> Does having more 'me too' cookie cutter Distros help the
>> ecosystem or might they dilute the strength of those that
>> precede them causing confusion and less innovation?
>> -----
>
>> Of note, I do not completely agree with these things... I am merely
>> noting how the COLA "advocates" act one way in COLA and another
>> elsewhere. They are inconsistent in their public views / actions and
>> those they show "behind closed doors".
>
> Instead of focusing on what (you think that) other think, why not
> share *your own* thoughts on the topic?
value but I think people have every right to make them.
> Do you think that "cookie cutter" distros harm the ecosystem?
on the confusion and in some cases the quality of the distro.
> If so, why? And can you come up with some examples where the ecosystem is
> being weakened by those so-called "cookie cutter" distros?
would be odd for me to list reasons why they do what I have not say they do.
> Personally I think it's nonsense. Having distros based on others
> pushes development and the introduction of new ideas and ways of doing
> things.
was - have they gone to full Debian base now?)
> A great example is Gentoo's portage, which now is the foundation on
> which Google builts their Chrome OS. It's very reasonable to state
> that there would be no Chrome OS as we know it without Gentoo and the
> innovation it brought with its built system.
do not think it is a cookie cutter distro - it is quite different than
others!
> Also noteworthy is Ubuntu, which used to be more or less a Debian
> clone (and for a huge part still is, by the way). It brought us the
> upstart init system (adopted by some others) and a radically different
> UI called Unity, none of which would've existed if Canonical hadn't
> created yet another distro based on Debian.
claims is a "cookie cutter" distro?
> Fedora is a cookie cut from Red Hat with the explicit purpose to be a
> testbed for new ideas and development. A lot of the good stuff in the
> commercial Red Hat distributions comes from the hard community work
> done in Fedora.
> Thanks to Mint (still largely an Ubuntu "cookie") we now have both
> Cinnamon *and* Mate, giving us even more diversity in the GNU/Linux
> ecosystem.
> I could go on and on, because the list of great examples is literally
> endless.
not think that is what Dietrich means, but I suggest you ask him directly. I
do not want to speak for him. Here is the conversation I was in reference
to: <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/GGroup/oops/cookie-cutter.jpg>
There is also a post to his hobby site.
--
"Maybe there is someone who considers it disgusting for a parrot to have sex
with a human. Or for a dolphin or tiger to have sex with a human. So what?
Others feel that all sex is disgusting." -- Richard Stallman
Snit
May 20, 2013, 3:24:53 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 7:31 AM, in article
> "One of the goals of Scientific Linux is to allow it to be modified easily
> so that Lab's, Universities, or whoever wants, can easily create their own
> distribution based off of Scientific Linux. In the past we have called
> these "Sites" but nowadays people have been calling them "Spins".
>
> Scientific-Linux CERN
> Scientific-Linux FERMI
> Scientific-Linux DESY (Based on Scientific-Linux, & supported for 10 years)
> HELiOS by GE Healthcare (Based on Scientific-Linux)
>
> Maybe he should call his 'old pals' at CERN & tell them they shouldn't
> diversify, & *must* adhere to "Hadron's Culling Rules" & everyone must
> co-operate on The One True Linux! <snicker>
Just utter nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic - it is just
attacks to please the herd.
> Ein volk, ein rei...oh, hang on, didn't someone
> else say that in the mid 20th Century..
--
"This doesn't mean our work is over; most GNU/Linux distros today contain
nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do."
-- Richard Stallman
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:47:19 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>>> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>>> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>>
>> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron", attack
>> Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>>
>> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
>> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side of
>> the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from lack of
>> cooperation or whatever.
>>
>> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
>> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it both
>> ways!
>
> And what would the trolling fuckwit do in the case of CERN & FERMI who
> have developed their own Linux sytems from the original core?
See the herd-pleasing attacks that have nothing to do with the topic.
>
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>>> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>>> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>>
>> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron", attack
>> Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>>
>> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
>> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side of
>> the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from lack of
>> cooperation or whatever.
>>
>> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
>> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it both
>> ways!
>
> And what would the trolling fuckwit do in the case of CERN & FERMI who
> have developed their own Linux sytems from the original core?
> "One of the goals of Scientific Linux is to allow it to be modified easily
> so that Lab's, Universities, or whoever wants, can easily create their own
> distribution based off of Scientific Linux. In the past we have called
> these "Sites" but nowadays people have been calling them "Spins".
>
> Scientific-Linux CERN
> Scientific-Linux FERMI
> Scientific-Linux DESY (Based on Scientific-Linux, & supported for 10 years)
> HELiOS by GE Healthcare (Based on Scientific-Linux)
>
> Maybe he should call his 'old pals' at CERN & tell them they shouldn't
> diversify, & *must* adhere to "Hadron's Culling Rules" & everyone must
> co-operate on The One True Linux! <snicker>
attacks to please the herd.
> Ein volk, ein rei...oh, hang on, didn't someone
> else say that in the mid 20th Century..
--
nonfree software, and there are more things that we expect a system to do."
-- Richard Stallman
Snit
May 20, 2013, 3:26:00 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/20/13 6:47 AM, in article 6q9kp8h0dg2s7nacl...@4ax.com,
although some of the web analytics companies now put it at around 1.5 per
cent." -- Linus Torvalds
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> TomB wrote:
>
>> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron",
> attack Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>
> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side
> of the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from
> lack of cooperation or whatever.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it
> both ways!
--
"On desktops, Linux has had a hard time cracking the 1 per cent mark,
> TomB wrote:
>
>> People make "cookie cutter" distros because they can. Nothing wrong with
>> that IMO. In the meantime, upstream takes care of development and
>> innovation. It are two completely different things.
>
> Right. What's funny is how freedom-hating assholes, like "Hadron",
> attack Free software for insufficient cooperation or whatever.
>
> Out of one side of the Wintroll's mouth, he'll bitch about the
> insignificant differences between some distros, and on the other side
> of the Wintroll's mouth he'll bitch about the wasted resources from
> lack of cooperation or whatever.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the "slightly different" distros a significant
> (waste of) effort, or are they not? The stupid troll can't have it
> both ways!
--
although some of the web analytics companies now put it at around 1.5 per
cent." -- Linus Torvalds
0 new messages