Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: An easy-to-use / install distro?

  • Subject: Re: An easy-to-use / install distro?
  • From: Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:02:25 +0200
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:STet1xMek36m744VaLcBCGM9b28=
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: CERN LHC - http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
  • References: <1159219091.938216.167290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <pan.2006.09.25.23.10.41.85896@zianet.com> <87venbbkvo.fsf@geemail.com> <ef9o24$a6n$02$2@news.t-online.com> <7uinu3-jul.ln1@sky.matrix> <1872372.4lrcA0kvb2@schestowitz.com>
  • User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1160575
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> __/ [ [H]omer ] on Tuesday 26 September 2006 13:27 \__
>
>> Peter KÃhlmann wrote:
>>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> < snip >
>>> 
>>>>> There are over 350 active distros now. None is 'best' or we would not
>>>>> need the other 300+. I use Gentoo - on my mini-itx. I use kubuntu on my
>>>>> desktop
>>>> "we" dont need the other 300. The others are mostly there as testimony
>>>> to "it can be done".
>> 
>> Let's put it this way; *somebody's* using them, otherwise they wouldn't
>> exist, and for as long as there's even one person using a distro, it's
>> viable. Unlike proprietary commercial software, FOSS doesn't need target
>> sales figures.
>> 
>> Oh yes, there are commercial Linux *vendors*, that *do* have sales
>> targets, but then the majority of the 400+ distros are *not* commercial.
>> 
>> The underlying FOSS components that make (and can be modified to
>> re-make) a distro do not have a financial need to meet a distribution
>> target, since they are not finance dependent ... they are "people
>> dependent".
>> 
>>> Who is "we"?
>>> You, flatfish, billwg, Erik F and DFS?
>> 
>> Hardon thinks he speaks for everyone; in reality he doesn't even speak
>> <snip />
>
> It sure looks like it. *grin*

Roy, Roy, Roy. You never stop making boobs do you?

Do you *ever* read anything before posting one of your smug rejoinders?

Did you not notice the "we" was in quotes? It was in direct response to
the "we" in the earlier post where it said "or we would not need" ... Do
stop me if I hare ahead too quickly for you.

But should you require a real definition of "we" : how about the 99.8%
of the desktop market who do not use any of these 350+ *FREE* "distros"?

There's one definition for a start. Enjoy it.

Oh, and how's your open source "free" search engine going? Last time I
looked it was a load of hot air with a self serving WIKI and an HTML
form field masquerading as a User Interface proof of concept.

LOL. Better than "alt.jokes".

-- 
I never thought that I'd see the day where Netscape is free software and
X11 is proprietary.  We live in interesting times.
		-- Matt Kimball <mkimball@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index