Linked by V. Deseinture on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:50 UTC
Mandriva, Mandrake, Lycoris Unlike Apple and Microsoft, and despite numerous demands from their users, Linux distributions have been traditionally unable to directly ship the popular Adobe Flash Player with their packages, due to the closed source nature of the software and the restrictive license chosen by Adobe. While it does seems shorter than a regular EULA made by Microsoft with all the legalese that goes with it, it does still restrict redistribution in most cases, and the FAQ seemed to be clear about that point.
Order by: Score:
Apple no longer ships the Flash player.
by kristoph on Fri 29th Jul 2011 21:09 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

You have to skate where the puck is going to be, not where it was.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Someone's been reading Gruber today ^^.

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Guilty :-)

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Fri 29th Jul 2011 21:57 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Ain't that something Linux Mint has been doing since forever?

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by Arv3n on Fri 29th Jul 2011 22:34 UTC in reply to "..."
Arv3n Member since:
2011-07-29

I thought Mandriva One included flash already as well.

what is this article about exactly? am i missing something?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by dexter11 on Sat 30th Jul 2011 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
dexter11 Member since:
2008-01-11

It's been a while since I tried Mandriva One but I think you're wrong.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...
by josi on Mon 1st Aug 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
josi Member since:
2009-03-11

Yes that's true. The Adobe Flash Player have been boundled with Mandriva One for years.

What have changed now is that now Mandriva will only publish one official Mandriva flavour, and that one won't be a fully free one.

But the will also distribute community editions which of course can be 100% free. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by Liquidator on Sat 30th Jul 2011 00:22 UTC in reply to "..."
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Commercial software should be downloaded and installed on-demand, not by installed by default.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: ...
by Gullible Jones on Sat 30th Jul 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Except that in this case, much of the internet won't work at all without it. And yes, we can whine all we want about how dumb that is - overuse of Flash is dumb - but that won't change the situation, at least not for a while.

IMO we need functionality by default, not ideology. Proprietary software may be inconvenient at times, but it is definitely here to stay, and if the Linux crowd doesn't cotton onto that idea their operating system will probably die off on the desktop.

Edit: oh yeah, just to be clear, I use Linux.

Edited 2011-07-30 01:30 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: ...
by anda_skoa on Sat 30th Jul 2011 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Except that in this case, much of the internet won't work at all without it.


Much of the Internet?
It would already be exaggerated to say much of the Web, but much of the Internet is borderline hilarious.

Lets assume for a moment that "normal people" don't use email, never use file sharing (ha!) and don't use any special purpose client software like games or media libraries.

Lets assume that these Internet users solely use a Web browser, what do you really need Flash for?

News portals? No
Travel or hotel booking? No
Online shopping? No
Online banking? Never heard of a bank requiring Flash but maybe there are some that don't want any customers.

I mean one of the main use cases of tablets is web browsing and the leading device (iPads) doesn't have Flash.

So I am sorry but I can't buy "much of the Internet won't work at all without it"

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: ...
by Alfman on Sat 30th Jul 2011 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

anda_skoa,


"Lets assume that these Internet users solely use a Web browser, what do you really need Flash for?"

To address the question directly: Flash/Java/Silverlight (pick your poison) are needed for highly interactive content. Arguably many users prefer that the websites they visit every day are not highly interactive, but never the less sometimes high interactivity is desired.

As a web developer myself, I run into situations where HTML/Javascript are completely lacking. For one thing, Javascript/DOM performance remains terrible. Secondly, it's severely limited in what it's able to do. The lack of standardized rasterization and svg makes client side charting extremely difficult or impossible without supporting proprietary plugins/extensions. There are many different hacks, but the most reliable and non-proprietary way to do charts/vectors is to render them on the server instead (mapquest/google earth/analytic charts). While this achieves the desired affect in a portable way, I dread these kinds of inefficient workarounds.


"I mean one of the main use cases of tablets is web browsing and the leading device (iPads) doesn't have Flash."


For apple, the battle against evil flash was a diversion (highly successful one I might add). You see apple's intent was to release a tablet where users are tethered to their walled garden. Flash posed a significant threat to their business model; particularly for games and other interactive content. Apple knew users would be happy to download interactive content from the web instead of from the istore, they also knew that developers would be keen to avoid the apple store police and high fees if they could still reach users. So apple banned all emulators and sideloading. They blamed technical problems with flash as the reason users would be banned from highly interactive web apps on their devices. They then promoted HTML5 to fill the gap, fully knowing that HTML5 is not able to deliver the same functionality as the applications in their store.

The conclusion here is just that apple banned flash on the basis of a threat to their business model, not on the basis that it has no utility to users.

Edited 2011-07-30 11:09 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by anda_skoa on Sat 30th Jul 2011 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Flash/Java/Silverlight (pick your poison) are needed for highly interactive content. Arguably many users prefer that the websites they visit every day are not highly interactive, but never the less sometimes high interactivity is desired.


Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that there was no use case for such technologies, there definitely are.
I was just opposing the assertion that a large part of web based offerings (which are even only one specific use case of the Internet) would not be available without.

I'd wager that it is actually only a small fraction of "the Internet" that requires this.

For apple, the battle against evil flash was a diversion (highly successful one I might add). You see apple's intent was to release a tablet where users are tethered to their walled garden. Flash posed a significant threat to their business model; particularly for games and other interactive content. Apple knew users would be happy to download interactive content from the web instead of from the istore, they also knew that developers would be keen to avoid the apple store police and high fees if they could still reach users. So apple banned all emulators and sideloading. They blamed technical problems with flash as the reason users would be banned from highly interactive web apps on their devices. They then promoted HTML5 to fill the gap, fully knowing that HTML5 is not able to deliver the same functionality as the applications in their store.

The conclusion here is just that apple banned flash on the basis of a threat to their business model, not on the basis that it has no utility to users.


I am quoting you in full on this because this is so very true.

However, I did not mean to imply that Flash was not necessary or important because Apple not supporting it on their iDevices.
What I meant was that I would not buy into the "much of the Internet(sic) would not work without it at all" argument because shutting out iDevice users is not something that is done lightly.

I have encountered quite some sites that had been using Flash for stuff that didn't require it and have now changed to something more appropriate in order to also support customers with iDevices.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: ...
by SlackerJack on Sat 30th Jul 2011 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Maybe for mainstream Linux but not general Linux distros with have FOSS at their heart. The distro breaks is principles by shipping proprietary software. A simple solution would be to make Flash and such software easy to install, which the likes of Ubuntu and openSUSE do.

Fedora will never do it but they're fine with that and so am I.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jul 2011 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

IMO we need functionality by default, not ideology. Proprietary software may be inconvenient at times, but it is definitely here to stay, and if the Linux crowd doesn't cotton onto that idea their operating system will probably die off on the desktop.

Edit: oh yeah, just to be clear, I use Linux.


If you feel that way, check out Fuduntu,

http://www.fuduntu.org/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by viton on Sat 30th Jul 2011 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Except that in this case, much of the internet won't work at all without it.

LOL. No one of the sites I visiting daily use flash.
Mainly news and programming-oriented stuff, blogs.
And I browsing'em all in iOS without any issue.
I wonder if any useful sites still use flash? I don't play flash games.

Edited 2011-07-30 15:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Liquidator on Sat 30th Jul 2011 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

OSNews is one of the few sites I visit that doesn't use Flash. My news site uses Flash for video excerpts, YouTube does use Flash, Gmail uses a Flash file for real-time I/O, etc...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by viton on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

My news site uses Flash for video excerpts

Yes, some sites use flash to post videos. But I can't remember the last time I had trouble with that.
Anyway this is a good reason to abandon proprietary web tech.
h.264 can be evil or not, but it is supported by a number of companies in contrast to anemic bug makers - adobe.
I don't like to support Flash and manufacturers who choiced an "easy way" and included it.

YouTube does use Flash

Youtube has html5 version. Embedded youtube videos are viewable on iOS. iOS has custom youtube app anyway.

Gmail uses a Flash file for real-time I/O

I/O of what?

Edited 2011-08-02 08:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ... - choice and purpose
by jabbotts on Sat 30th Jul 2011 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The user should have the choice of feature complete fit for there needs. The distribution should have the choice of what legally distributable software it includes by default for the target user. There can be both feature complete distros and opt-in distros. Let Mandriva and Mint include it. Debian can still place it in the opt-in "non-free" repositor.

To be honest, I've thought it nuts that Canonical claims to deliver a distro for everybody especially new users yet it took a fork to Mint for "new user" commodity polish like more complete hardware support, codecs, flash and such. If new and average users are the target customer then one should favour enabling that type of user.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...
by filosofem on Mon 1st Aug 2011 06:23 UTC in reply to "..."
filosofem Member since:
2010-05-05

Linux Mint does not only install Flash but also various proprietary codecs by default. I'm not sure how legal it is or how they get away with it, but I figured I'd end up having to install the codecs anyway, so as long as LMDE maintains compatibility with Debian Testing, I'm cool.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Neolander on Mon 1st Aug 2011 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Mint's mirrors are probably located in a place of the world where it's legal to redistribute flash player and non-free codecs with linux distros, like a large part of Europe (inc. Turkey).

Don't know how long this situation will last, though (in France, I think DeCSS has been made illegal some years ago by the DADVSI law, as an example). But for now, these countries are blessed with very good OOB Linux distro UX.

Edited 2011-08-01 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I don't get it
by jbauer on Sat 30th Jul 2011 08:20 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

What's so hard about installing Flash manually? Flash is one of those things that need to be strictly up to date due to the constant security issues anyway.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I don't get it
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jul 2011 09:40 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

http://www.fedorafaq.org/#flash


Open a Terminal.

Become root:

su -

Install the Adobe repository for yum:

yum --nogpgcheck install http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-i386-1.0...

Type:

yum install --exclude=AdobeReader* flash-plugin nspluginwrapper.{i686,x86_64} pulseaudio-libs.i686 alsa-plugins-pulseaudio.i686 libcurl.i686

Configure Firefox to see the plugin, by typing:

mozilla-plugin-config -i -g -v

If you have Firefox open, quit and open it again.


Or on Windows ... download the installer.

Edited 2011-07-30 09:41 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I don't get it
by jabbotts on Sat 30th Jul 2011 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't get it"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

On Windows:
- find Adobe website
- find download link for flash player
- download active X plugin installer
- download mozilla/chrome plugin installer
- run active X plugin installer
- run active mozilla/chrome plugin installer

To update:
- repeat regularily for at least one that doesn't install from the "update available" notice popup

On Debian:
- enable "non-free" repository if not enabled already
# aptitude update
# aptitude install flashplugin-nonfree

To update:
# update-flashplugin-nonfree --install

Or, use the graphic package manager


On Mint
- nothing, I think it's installed by default given the distribution's intended user.

On Mandriva, I remember it being a single package install also. Oh, maybe two steps; visit easyRPM website to enable non-free repository, install flashplayer package.

Really, all of these including Windows are rediculous. Regardless of OS, the browser should simply offer to install the flashplayer plugin from it's normal plugin repository on first use like it would with any other media plugin. The framework for install and update delivery exists already.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I don't get it
by lucas_maximus on Sat 30th Jul 2011 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You are slightly exaggerating how difficult it is to install since most websites will include a link to Adobe flash when it is detected that it isn't installed.

Firefox actually prompts you to install when it encounters flash content ... and you can add the plugin via Firefox's interface ... I am sure Chrome already has Chrome included ... I can't remember now.

Really, all of these including Windows are rediculous. Regardless of OS, the browser should simply offer to install the flashplayer plugin from it's normal plugin repository on first use like it would with any other media plugin. The framework for install and update delivery exists already.


Yes I agree with the sentiment, Fuduntu (new Linux distro based off Fedora) much like mandriva, is including flash. It is licensed.

Would be nice if Flash was just included in Windows and they would release a source distribution so that it would be possible to patch for OSs like OpenBSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I don't get it
by Nth_Man on Sun 31st Jul 2011 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't get it"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

You are slightly exaggerating how difficult it is to install since most websites will include a link to Adobe flash when it is detected that it isn't installed.

I hope that you realize that if people trust any web page and so don't go to the official sites... there are a lot of infections and consequently botnets due to installing things that are not what they tell to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I don't get it
by lucas_maximus on Mon 1st Aug 2011 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't get it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As I keep on pointing out ... common sense is the best defense against malware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I don't get it
by AnythingButVista on Sat 30th Jul 2011 18:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
AnythingButVista Member since:
2008-08-27

Or use the Ninite installer at http://updateflash.org/ which installs both Firefox and IE Flash plugins without installing toolbars or other crapware in the process.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't get it
by WorknMan on Sun 31st Jul 2011 04:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

On Windows:
- find Adobe website
- find download link for flash player
- download active X plugin installer
- download mozilla/chrome plugin installer
- run active X plugin installer
- run active mozilla/chrome plugin installer


I just open up Firefox and the first time it hits a website that needs Flash, it prompts me to install, and it's done. (I assume other browsers work the same way). IMHO, that's better than the command-line bullshit you gotta do in many Linux distros. See, one is easy, the other is intuitive. Do you understand the difference?

Edited 2011-07-31 04:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I don't get it
by Nth_Man on Sun 31st Jul 2011 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't get it"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

I just open up Firefox and the first time it hits a website that needs Flash, it prompts me to install, and it's done.

That kind of hints have made botnets possible. In Windows, instead of people going to the official site, they are told to install what they are told in any web page. Who knows what they are installing?

the command-line bullshit

If you choose one of the best distributions, like Kubuntu, to install a package you can use a GUI. Or the command line (*) if you need it. Each one has its advantages, as you probably know.

(*) I executed a simple sudo apt-get install kubuntu-restricted-extras, without adding extra repositories nor doing anything else.

Edited 2011-07-31 11:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I don't get it
by lucas_maximus on Mon 1st Aug 2011 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't get it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That kind of hints have made botnets possible. In Windows, instead of people going to the official site, they are told to install what they are told in any web page. Who knows what they are installing?


Actually Firefox finds you the correct plugin ... are you saying Mozilla cannot be trusted to give you the right link to flash ... seriously?

If you choose one of the best distributions, like Kubuntu, to install a package you can use a GUI. Or the command line (*) if you need it. Each one has its advantages, as you probably know.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86UbHd8Fh3A&feature=player_profilepa...

But apt in general is a bit shit anyway ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqQMqQxf-Ik&feature=player_profilepa...

(*) I executed a simple sudo apt-get install kubuntu-restricted-extras, without adding extra repositories nor doing anything else.


http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/useesotericworkarounds/

Edited 2011-08-01 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I don't get it
by Nth_Man on Mon 1st Aug 2011 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I don't get it"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Actually Firefox finds you the correct plugin ... are you saying Mozilla cannot be trusted to give you the right link to flash ... seriously?

We were talking about going to the official site to download software, that includes the official site of Firefox, not web pages that, for example, say "Download Firefox there". Also people must beware if Firefox says that one site asks for the "FIash plug-in" [let's notice it's not "Flash", but "FIash", with a capital "i"] and people click to install it, because sometimes the plug-in it's a surprise, like the trojan horse one.

But apt in general is a bit shit anyway ...

I use apt normally, in the latest Kubuntu, 11.04 (it's not Ubuntu 10.04 like the video one) and I can install Wine without errors. I can talk about what I use.

> (*) I executed a simple sudo apt-get install
> kubuntu-restricted-extras
, without adding extra
> repositories nor doing anything else.

http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/useesotericworkarounds/

If, instead of using a GUI and instead of using the command that was shown, you want to use esoteric commands, you are free to do it.

Edited 2011-08-01 16:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I don't get it
by Nth_Man on Mon 1st Aug 2011 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I don't get it"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Anyone can also install the latest Kubuntu in a virtual machine and install Wine and see it for himself. It's free, and there are no license problems :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I don't get it
by lucas_maximus on Mon 1st Aug 2011 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I don't get it"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

We were talking about going to the official site to download software, that includes the official site of Firefox, not web pages that, for example, say "Download Firefox there". Also people must beware if Firefox says that one site asks for the "FIash plug-in" [let's notice it's not "Flash", but "FIash", with a capital "i"] and people click to install it, because sometimes the plug-in it's a surprise, like the trojan horse one.


Well this is down to common sense isn't it.

Anyway it is standard practice to give a link to flash if the player isn't installed/enabled. I am not just leave a gaping hole on my webpage with no explaination to user as to why they aren't seeing what they are expecting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't get it
by Finalzone on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't get it"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.fedorafaq.org/#flash

"
Open a Terminal.

Become root:

su -

Install the Adobe repository for yum:

yum --nogpgcheck install http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-i386-1.0...

Type:

yum install --exclude=AdobeReader* flash-plugin nspluginwrapper.{i686,x86_64} pulseaudio-libs.i686 alsa-plugins-pulseaudio.i686 libcurl.i686

Configure Firefox to see the plugin, by typing:

mozilla-plugin-config -i -g -v

If you have Firefox open, quit and open it again.


Or on Windows ... download the installer.
"
Fedorafaq.org geared more to advanced users who want to use terminal (prompt in Microsoft Windows world). Simply use any browser to go Adobe Flash website, choose either yum or rpm. Using yum will allow use to update from that repository.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't get it - package it as an addon
by jabbotts on Sat 30th Jul 2011 12:25 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Right now, flash is delivered as an installer that drops a browser addon into your system. It should be packaged like a proper addon and delivered through FF/Chrome addon sites and IE option to install on first use.

No distro specific package format.
Easy install by user regardless of os.
Inclusion into an existing auto-update system.
No more issue between distributions and licenses.

Reply Score: 3

rpm5 fiasco?
by dexter11 on Sat 30th Jul 2011 10:13 UTC
dexter11
Member since:
2008-01-11

It's rather a Jeff Johnson fiasco. And not even the first one.
If something is a fiasco it's the usage of a fundamental software in a distro which is developed by a primadonna.

Reply Score: 1

Flash is common in Linux distros
by jessesmith on Sat 30th Jul 2011 13:21 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

I'm not sure which distro the submitter is using, but lots of Linux distros ship with Flash enabled. Those that don't have Adboe's Flash will often include Gnash. It's getting rare to find a distro that doesn't include one or the other.

Reply Score: 1

Alive
by Bending Unit on Sat 30th Jul 2011 18:01 UTC
Bending Unit
Member since:
2005-07-06

Mandriva is still alive? Good for them I guess?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Sat 30th Jul 2011 18:02 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

I actually thought Mandriva had gone belly up. Glad to hear they're still alive.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by AnythingButVista
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 31st Jul 2011 03:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by AnythingButVista"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I actually thought Mandriva had gone belly up. Glad to hear they're still alive.

They might as well have gone under. Mageia honestly seems like a better Mandriva than Mandriva itself. I don't know what the hell Mandriva was thinking when they decided to do away with the traditional installer DVDs and go all-out live DVD, and worse... what they did to the KDE menu, replacing it was some crap menu that's slow as hell and takes up the whole damn screen. I tried RC2, and I'm not impressed... at all.

Reply Score: 2

Restrictive License
by vitae on Sat 30th Jul 2011 18:14 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

Isn't that the operable term here? Would it have killed Adobe to just release Flash under some sort of controlled open source license, just allowing it to be distributed, but still being under their control? We already have too many audio, video and document formats because every company has to have their own. Flash is restricted so Microsoft felt compelled to make Silverlight, and around and around we go.

Reply Score: 2

Hey, RC2 is not final release!
by multik on Mon 1st Aug 2011 05:52 UTC
multik
Member since:
2011-08-01

Yes, developers include flash player by default in distro. For test, etc. But its not mean, that still alive in final!

Currently we remove all non-free thing like flash, codecs, etc to separate repository and as we finish this, mandriva was clean.

Reply Score: 1

rpm5 fiasco?
by proyvind on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 03:16 UTC
proyvind
Member since:
2011-05-03

This is article is just as fucking clueless as the other one written, you obviously total insight on neither rpm5, events that lead to mageia, nor adobe flash troll by Michael Schere.

You'd better learn from Jonathan Corbet which wrote the other rpm5 article recently which actually did a good article without revealing great ignorance and arrogance..

RPM5 has not been a fiasco whatsoever, and everyone now agrees on it was the correct and it works perfect, and way better than rpm 4.x..

Please stop your ignorant slander and try work on morre well-informed/serious journalistic than writing about what you don't know jack shit about, don't even try to (you did not ask for any input from jeff or me at all, in contract to Corbet, this is really poor journalism and totally clueless).

Seriously, there's a reason for less and less people read osnews, reading poorly written articles about technical stuff the author know, AND slandering projects due to this arrogant ignorance of, people has mostly stopped read you over the last years.

Shape up or slip out, and if you wanna slam on rpm5, I'm for a debate, you're very welcome to speak to me directly, with an exclusive interview provided.
It would be an honour, but untill you do anything of such sort, I *WILL* start slandering your incompetence on osnews.com frequently when I see retard FUD against RPM, Mandriva og anything else I'm involved with..

Reply Score: 1

RE: rpm5 fiasco?
by josi on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 07:18 UTC in reply to "rpm5 fiasco?"
josi Member since:
2009-03-11

Who maintains RPM? (2011 edition)
http://lwn.net/Articles/440447/

Reply Score: 1

RE: rpm5 fiasco?
by proyvind on Tue 2nd Aug 2011 15:48 UTC in reply to "rpm5 fiasco?"
proyvind Member since:
2011-05-03

I *WILL* be very happy to give you an excellent interview, whatever internal details and technical details and the actual real advantages of rpm5 which made us go for it as the only viable option, while also giving you our side about what really happened during the mageia fork.

As noone has even asked or showed interest in this in stead of of trashing mandriva based on slandering and hostility towards mandriva incited by a few employees which didn't get to keep their job (where redundancy did *NOT* play the biggest role at all for why they weren't "welcome" to come over to mandriva liquidation), I'd be happy to tell you the *real* story, which I was the only who personally was very much involved with at first and pushed for the foundation since 2007 (THEY BLOCKED AND CONSIDERED A THREAT), I know all to well about all the fishy details.

So if you want a good story and also write something people won't just dismiss as trash stories, but of technical interest and all, I urge you to get in touch:
peroyvind@mandriva.org

If not, please stop slandering me, my associates and everything we do based on ignorance and FUD from an extremely biased and hostile crowd.

Reply Score: 1