Linked by Jeremy Wells on Tue 8th Feb 2005 08:05 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



>>Yes I am very annoyed: why on earth I should be patient when they came out with a debian testing a little modified and polished and nothing more?
> why would this annoy you?
I was replying to a person , read the subject.
> i cant count the amount of distros that have been hyped to within an inch of their life. welcome to the world of linux, glad you could join us.
Sorry but I am in linux world from a long time: when there was no hype and new distro were really "new". And when people started to hype redhat5 I tried it only to discover that "man printf" not work: I steered clearly from it and started using debian. Hype is for the windows world, in linux world it hurts me a lot.
>-I like forks
ubuntu isnt a fork. the universe repos could be called a branching, cause the changes are made to be rolled into the official debian packages.
Wow now you are discussing about the meaning of a word. Well, if it is a branch why they use a different versioning scheme so you cannot use debian repositories in ubuntu apt?
>-but a fork should add more value (real value)
like security updates?
No comment. BTW: also debian has security updates I suppose it is not necessary to start a new distro just for this.
> >-you cannot call a distribution "a desktop distribution" just because it includes gnome
my definition of "desktop distribution" would be a linux distribution that includes desktop software. what is yours?
Terrible: so all distributions in the world are desktop distributions.
Try to raise the bar please.
> >-you cannot call a distribution "a powerful server distribution" just because it includes apache
>my definition of "server distribution" would be a linux distribution that includes server software. what is yours?
Terrible: so all distributions in the world are server distributions.
Try to raise the bar please.