Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 347264
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-19
Not really. The post you refer to simply notes that at a kernel level, there's little difference between server and desktop, and thus no real benefit in splitting the kernel into server and desktop branches.
In contrast, this article is about the layers where meaningful differences *do* exist - whether a distro is optimised for administering servers, or if it's a Gnome-based or KDE-based desktop, or something else. Quite different subjects, and no irony at all.