Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:16 UTC, submitted by chully
Gnome Over the weekend, there has been a bit of a ruffling of the feathers over in the GNOME camp. It started with complaints received about the content on Planet GNOME, and ended with people proposing and organising a vote to split GNOME from the GNU Project.
E-mail Print r 14   · Read More · 333 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 399652
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
marafaka
Member since:
2006-01-03

Great man, so how do you replace windows WM with DWM? And windows userland with BSD? And custom installation procedures with portmaster or something? Do I get packet filtering, file and application servers, video transcoding, 3D editing, mathematical, financial software and developement tools on the same DVD nowdays? What about drivers?

I'd like to be a full Microsoft Windows user too! My mother would like that!

We don't need Richard Stallman now, we can steal what he did in the past, give credit to Microsoft and live happily everafter! All of us!

Reply Parent Score: 1

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Great man, so how do you replace windows WM with DWM? And windows userland with BSD? And custom installation procedures with portmaster or something? Do I get packet filtering, file and application servers, video transcoding, 3D editing, mathematical, financial software and developement tools on the same DVD nowdays? What about drivers?

Windows comes with the drivers you need, or they are installed by the OEMs, or they come with the hardware (which can't be said for Linux drivers, where only the first is true). There are ALWAYS drivers for Windows, and there are generally drivers for Linux, but often well after a product has been released and they may never be fully functional. Video card drivers are notorious about this. As for the rest, yes you get file and application servers and packet filtering. The more advanced productivity software you have to pay for (what a concept!) but you can often download that directly from Microsoft and then pay for it and guess what...it's generally leaps and bounds ahead of bugridden crap like OpenOffice and Octave. Of course, almost any software that runs on Linux can also run on Windows, so if you really need some piece of Linux software, you don't need Linux to use it. The first three sentences point out things that really aren't needed, but could be done anyways. You can use alternate shells in Windows and you are free to make one. They used to do that for XP (LiteStep for example). And you can always run an X server if you are a masochist and need that 1995 look and feel (and performance). There's no value in a Windows userland with BSD, and only a tiny handful of people bother with that kind of thing even in the open source world. And you can install Windows software any way you want to. It has a package manager, but you are free to use your own system. Cygwin has its own custom system. It's not a problem with Windows. In fact, I'm not even sure that complaint even makes sense.

I'd like to be a full Microsoft Windows user too! My mother would like that!

There's nothing wrong with OSS except that there are only a few shining beacons amidst a sea of crap. And OSS for a desktop is a miserable, miserable failure. It's great in the server room. I wouldn't use Windows for servers or even a fileserver/backend setup. Linux/*BSD does that better.

We don't need Richard Stallman now, we can steal what he did in the past, give credit to Microsoft and live happily everafter! All of us!

Most folks in the OSS world think Richard is at best a has-been. I don't even know why you are bringing him up in this fashion. There's no stealing of what he did in the past. There's no giving of credit to Microsoft for his work (only giving of credit to them for actually producing useful and quality software -- btw, this isn't 1995; Microsoft software is of very good quality today and the Open Source world generally hasn't provided much in the way of real competition for the cash cows of Office, Windows, etc.). I'd rather that people realize that Linux on the desktop isn't going to happen and probably can't due to the development model and that the idea of pure free software is antithetical to actually producing good software. Open source as a means by which companies and universities, etc. can collaborate (with community involvement as well) on software more openly seems to work best. We've seen it time and time again. Of course, it can only work for individual products. Producing an entire desktop stack that way has not worked out and honestly, nobody cares outside of a few enthusiasts and Canonical. They've had 15 years to produce a usable desktop and the market share still sits at 1% or less. Failure. There is no other word for it but failure.

Reply Parent Score: 2