Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
Distro help. Please?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I really hate it when people decide "who gives a crap about the licence, the product is far superior".
--- End quote ---
Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---No wonder the world is in such a state.
--- End quote ---
[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]
Yeah right. :rolleyes:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---But sometimes they don't have much choice.
I wonder why.
--- End quote ---
We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.
--- Quote from: Dark_Me ---So the setup is BIOS. How was I suppost to know? What the hell is BIOS anyway?
F2 and F11 work. My problem is that it wont boot from the disc so I can install it. It's not a live CD or anything. I have played around with the boot order so that it will boot soley from CD and it recongnizes the prescence of a CD but cannot boot from it. I might have to play around with the setup a bit.
Also Ubuntu was suppost to be an .iso image, which it wasn't. Unless you can veiw .iso images without a CD. As folders and various other things.
There isn't any other way to install Ubuntu other than booting from disc is there?
--- End quote ---
Can you actually execute the set up program?
How about other distros?
Does knoppix, or live Ubuntu work?
Orethrius:
Wow. Just... WOW. I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.
--- End quote ---
No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.
--- Quote ---[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]
--- End quote ---
As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.
--- Quote ---We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
--- End quote ---
Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.
--- Quote ---Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.
--- End quote ---
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.
Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source"
--- End quote ---
In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.
--- End quote ---
I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).
Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.
--- End quote ---
That's hardley much of a choice, is it?
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Give up
--- End quote ---
Mmmm letmethinkletmethink
Nah :).
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Wow. Just... WOW. I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.
--- End quote ---
I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.
Companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.
--- End quote ---
Blah blah blah, I don't give a fuck, who said about paying for anything here?
The fact that you have access to the source is immaterial in this case both pieces of software cost fuck all, the only differance is one is better than the other and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.
The thing that pisses me off about the GNU crew is their belief that eveyone should have the right to have access to the source for all of the programs they use. I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.
--- End quote ---
Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.
Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?
What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?
If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.
--- End quote ---
I don't care, all I care is that the software I use does what I want, I'm no programmer I just want the shit to work out of the box. I'd rather download some decent proprietary software rather than having to make good some shitty open source crap.
EDIT: Forgot to respond to this.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---
Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.
--- End quote ---
I agree with you on this, I have never disputed this, of course the developers have an equal right to make their source code public but they have an equal right to choose to make thie code public as they do to keep it private.
--- Quote from: Orethrius ---Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?
--- End quote ---
No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!
--- End quote ---
Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).
--- End quote ---
Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.
--- End quote ---
In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---That's hardley much of a choice, is it?
Mmmm letmethinkletmethink
--- End quote ---
hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Nah :).
--- End quote ---
I'd rather use software that does what I want in the first place.
*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*
Pathos:
OI start another thread, stop spamming this one.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version