3 ms·

You are sacrificing your objectivity, there is no reason other distros cannot be 'just as shiny' as Ubuntu or Mac OS. Furthermore it is horrible because Canoni

by ihsw 14y ago

You are sacrificing your objectivity, there is no reason other distros cannot be 'just as shiny' as Ubuntu or Mac OS. Furthermore it is horrible because Canonical has a history of secrecy and authoritarianism and they absolutely go against the spirit of open source software development.

chc 14y ago
If the "spirit of open-source software development" can't stand for distro maintainers to have strong control over what goes in their own distros, this open-source spirit sounds pretty authoritarian itself. If (for example) I want to maintain my own window manager for my distro and I provide the source under a free license but don't accept outside contributions into my own distribution, what is wrong with that? Isn't that part of the freedom of free software?
- zobzu 14y ago
  In my experience distros attempting to keep things as close as possible to packages upstream (except for bug fixes) are always the most useable, stable, etc. So I sort of prefer the "authoritarianism" from upstream. Additionally, an upstream package has authority only on ONE component. The distro has authority on ALL components. That makes ALL the difference.
  - chc 14y ago
    I actually agree. I like Debian better than Ubuntu because I feel like its packages are generally more reliable for my use. But that doesn't mean I would declare Ubuntu to be "horrible" — just not to my taste. I respect Ubuntu's ambition and hope they are successful in what they are trying to accomplish.
    - zobzu 14y ago
      Yeah, I'm not saying Ubuntu is horrible by any means, but I have better luck with distros taking another direction, for the reasons mentioned
- forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
  Agreed. So many geek people hating Ubuntu this days, probably because they feel "betrayed" as they make Linux more user friendly. Most of them had contributed zero to Linux, so I don't know where this entitlement sense and emotional response comes from. If you don't like it, go use whatever you want.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

by ihsw 14y ago

chc 14y ago

If the "spirit of open-source software development" can't stand for distro maintainers to have strong control over what goes in their own distros, this open-source spirit sounds pretty authoritarian itself. If (for example) I want to maintain my own window manager for my distro and I provide the source under a free license but don't accept outside contributions into my own distribution, what is wrong with that? Isn't that part of the freedom of free software?

zobzu 14y ago
In my experience distros attempting to keep things as close as possible to packages upstream (except for bug fixes) are always the most useable, stable, etc. So I sort of prefer the "authoritarianism" from upstream. Additionally, an upstream package has authority only on ONE component. The distro has authority on ALL components. That makes ALL the difference.
- chc 14y ago
  I actually agree. I like Debian better than Ubuntu because I feel like its packages are generally more reliable for my use. But that doesn't mean I would declare Ubuntu to be "horrible" — just not to my taste. I respect Ubuntu's ambition and hope they are successful in what they are trying to accomplish.
  - zobzu 14y ago
    Yeah, I'm not saying Ubuntu is horrible by any means, but I have better luck with distros taking another direction, for the reasons mentioned
forgottenpaswrd 14y ago
Agreed. So many geek people hating Ubuntu this days, probably because they feel "betrayed" as they make Linux more user friendly. Most of them had contributed zero to Linux, so I don't know where this entitlement sense and emotional response comes from. If you don't like it, go use whatever you want.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]