To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
'Note, with that I don't say this particular idea is no good. '
But you are missing the point of the above poster.
He critisized the guy that said Gobolinux is not a good idea, but that other guy did not give ANY REASON AT ALL.
Noone can act upon FUD
And btw, this suggestion here is different from Gobolinux in a few key areas. I am not saying it is good or bad here, but it is obviously that there are a few people who neither read this, nor know about Gobolinux - or opt to simply not give any reasons at all why something is "good" or "bad".
It is pointless to debate about opinions without people giving any REASONS behind them.
I don't think I misunderstood, but nevermind [I was just trying to point at what I frequently ran into in the past, that someone can actually make a case about an idea in a really long form, still the idea can be completely wrong, which in this particular case isn't].
As about Gobo, I'd say the above ideas are far better than Gobo's, since I always found Gobo to be a bit strained, and I actually found the trials I made with it irritating. It's not a native approach, not a trial to make a better file/dir hierarchy and better package/app management, it feels more like a hack. A system following the above ideas could actually be something better, even if I don't really like some aspects of it.




Member since:
2005-07-06
It doesn't matter how long it is. A good idea is a good idea in two lines and in ten pages. Just because it can be detailed for hours doesn't make any idea good. Note, with that I don't say this particular idea is no good.
The only thing is, it's hard to satisfy everybody's taste. E.g. I don't like the Mac-style of application installing, I prefer dpkg, and I don't like the folder names with compulsory capitals, and so on. That doesn't mean the concept itself is wrong.