On 25/02/07, Ric Moore <wayward4now@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 21:18 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 24/02/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree that one distro should not be both server AND desktop. Even M$ > > > has a desktop version of Windows (Vista) and a server version > > > (Server). Well, it might be more like trashcan version and spambot > > > version, but you get the point. > > > > > > Dotan Cohen > > > > Strange complaint, since Fedora will have a Desktop and a Server spin > > - or are you implying that the diff. Windows "versions" are more than > > spins? > > > > That wasn't a complaint. Rather, I see the wisdom in 'spins' and think > that it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also rather hoping > that the powers that be will get it down to THREE DISKS maximum. I've > already had to install Kubuntu on peoples machines because 5 disks is > way to much to have a potential convert download. Dotan, why would three disks be "enough"? You "had to install Kubuntu because 5 disks..." ...if you're installing, why would they gripe? How would they even know how many disks is enough, or too much, if they can't install their own machines? Isn't free "free" enough for these friends?? C'mon, you gotta do better than that. They'll either dnload it to the CD's, or dnload 1 CD and still dnload the rest, piece by piece, so it's a wash.
I once talked to someone and we decided to d/l while we ate, and install afterwards. I knew that there was no way that all five Fedora disks would download in time. Kubuntu barely managed to download it's 700 megs over http in time (bittorrent is disabled in the university). Three Fedora disk would still be too much, but it's at least comprehensible. 5 is plain ridiculous. If Fedora required 18 disks to install, would you still argue in it's favor? I doubt it. So where is the line drawn? For me it is at 3 disks: an arbitrary number that is not _too_ high, yet possibly within reach if Fedora devs want to do it. I doubt that Fedora has 3 times the necessary software as does [k]Ubuntu.
Every time someone proselytizes Kubuntu on this list I keep seeing the scene where Jack Nicholson as the Joker, is on a parade float while Prince plays "You've Got The Look." Money is floating down out of the sky, pizza and beer is free. Everyone is deliriously ecstatic. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What do you mean? Kubuntu is mentioned for some of the same reasons that Windows is mentioned: this is a list centered around an operating system, and Kubuntu is a competing operating system. It's not as good as Fedora in some regards, better in others. People will disagree which are strong points and which as weak points. But they should be discussed, to learn from them.
You tell me what glorious advances they have contributed to the community, as RedHat has. Zilch, nada. Just a bunch of press, is all. I'll dance with who brung me, even if they piss me off from time to time. :) Ric
Kubuntu is exactly what it's motto implies: Linux for humans. Not CS majors, and not gearheads. That's why I don't use it. It's also why I install it for others. [k]Ubuntu has brought Linux within the reach of the average dumbass computer user. It's simple to maintain. Things just work. It's easy to install. It addresses, one by one, all the misconceptions surrounding Linux. Especially the "hard to use" and "complicated" misconceptions. Dotan Cohen http://lyricslist.com/lyrics/artist_albums/372/new_order.html http://what-is-what.com/what_is/google.html
