On December 16, 2013, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Hello, double standard!
You're right. That was a double standard. My bad on that. And I agree it's
likely easier to find Linux on the Ubuntu site that the Android site. I
wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Sorry. My bad again.
> Hilarious. What, exac
On 12/16/2013 06:16 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> Your previous emails all come across as pure Ubuntu bashing using
> reasoning not supported by any evidence. This is disingenuous,
> especially when the thread was started by a person unfamiliar with
> Unity and was just looking for some details about
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 12:28 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Olli Ries wrote:
>>> Mir does have nothing to do with Unity
>>
>> Correct. This thread has diverged from the subject of Unity to
>> general Canonical bashing.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 05:56 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
>> No. You are wrong.
>> * Display servers can be swapped back and forth by simple package choices.
>> * X, and any other desktop environment will continue to be supported
>> on Mir using the XMir
On 12/16/2013 05:56 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> No. You are wrong.
> * Display servers can be swapped back and forth by simple package choices.
> * X, and any other desktop environment will continue to be supported
> on Mir using the XMir compatibility layer.
>
> Your "sky is falling" logic is whol
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> I think this comparison is not accurate because all of these things you
> mention can more or less coexist and be swapped back and forth
> interchangeably. When Ubuntu completes the transition to Mir, Ubuntu
> software and the Unity desktop
On 12/16/2013 12:28 PM, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Olli Ries wrote:
>> Mir does have nothing to do with Unity
>
> Correct. This thread has diverged from the subject of Unity to
> general Canonical bashing.
I disagree with your assessment. Mir might not have anything
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Olli Ries wrote:
> Mir does have nothing to do with Unity
Correct. This thread has diverged from the subject of Unity to
general Canonical bashing.
Unity is just another desktop environment, heavily based on Gnome3
(IMHO), but different in many important ways.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Richard Esplin
wrote:
> I agree with your analysis, but I don't think your tone does justice to the
> frustration with Ubuntu. It's the mismatch in expectations between those who
> wanted to use Ubuntu Linux, and Canonical's wish to have their own OS built on
> a
I agree with your analysis, but I don't think your tone does justice to the
frustration with Ubuntu. It's the mismatch in expectations between those who
wanted to use Ubuntu Linux, and Canonical's wish to have their own OS built on
a Linux base.
Most adopters of Ubuntu who hang out on Linux lis
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
>> Google does the same thing as Ubuntu with Android. A lot of us geeks
>
> Well yea, but Android is a bit different. First, they tell anyone who's
> curious that Android is based on Linux. And that's the point. It's _based
> on_ Linux. It's stated
On December 13, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
> There's no legal obligation to do so though, provided they honor the
> terms of the licenses of the source code they are distributing.
Yea, I know. Doesn't mean I necessarily AGREE, but I do understand they
aren't violating any laws other than my mor
On 12/13/2013 03:07 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
> On December 11, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> This is further evidenced by Ubuntu dropping all branding references to
>> Linux. They want Ubuntu to be Ubuntu, not Ubuntu Linux.
>
> Then they should write their own kernel and boot loaders (or at least thei
On December 11, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
> This is further evidenced by Ubuntu dropping all branding references to
> Linux. They want Ubuntu to be Ubuntu, not Ubuntu Linux.
Then they should write their own kernel and boot loaders (or at least their
own grub modules), and compile the gnu uti
On 12/11/2013 04:23 PM, Olli Ries wrote:
> Mir does have nothing to do with Unity
It does in the sense that Unity is going to require Mir in the future
and will (in theory) do away with X11 entirely. Of course the rest of
the Linux world would also like to move beyond X11, but everyone else
has d
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Olli Ries wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> On 12/07/2013 07:30 AM, Olli Ries wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
>> >
>> >> On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>
[...]
> You missed the bigge
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 07:30 AM, Olli Ries wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
> >
> >> On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >>> Mint seems to be gaining in popularity because 1) it doesn't have Unit
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 12/11/2013 03:49 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
>> I guess I'm dating myself again, but what's OpenStep? Remember I've had
>> only glancing contact with Linux for nearly 10 years now. (NOT by choice,
>> by the way)
>
> If only there were a way to lo
On 12/11/2013 03:49 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
> On December 7, 2013, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
>> Imagine OpenStep but built on top of gnome with a built in search box
>> instead of a proper menu. That's pretty much unity.
>
> I guess I'm dating myself again, but what's OpenStep? Remember I've had
> only gl
On December 7, 2013, S. Dale Morrey wrote:
> Imagine OpenStep but built on top of gnome with a built in search box
instead
> of a proper menu. That's pretty much unity.
I guess I'm dating myself again, but what's OpenStep? Remember I've had
only glancing contact with Linux for nearly 10 years
On 12/07/2013 07:30 AM, Olli Ries wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
>
>> On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>>> Mint seems to be gaining in popularity because 1) it doesn't have Unity
>>
>>> and 2) it gives other desktop environments like LXDE and XFCE
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
> On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
[...]
> > Mint seems to be gaining in popularity because 1) it doesn't have Unity
>
> > and 2) it gives other desktop environments like LXDE and XFCE and Mate
>
> > more first-class attention (KDE used
Imagine OpenStep but built on gnome and with a built in search box instead
of a proper menu. That's pretty much unity.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Dan Egli wrote:
> On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> > Mint isn't less common. It's probably one of the fastest growing
>
> > dist
On December 5, 2013, Michael Torrie wrote:
> Mint isn't less common. It's probably one of the fastest growing
> distros in terms of popularity.
Well, it's uncommon to me because I don't recall hearing of it before. But
then again I have been out of the game for a few years now.
> Mint seems
24 matches
Mail list logo
