Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Have something to say about forums.debian.net itself?

Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Yes. Debian only please.
22
19%
50-50. Please censor complaints about Ubuntu.
16
14%
No. Censorship in any form is unacceptable.
79
68%
 
Total votes : 117

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby cynwulf » 2011-06-02 09:12

yawn...
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-09-25 08:49

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby dmhdlr » 2011-06-02 12:39

I have a related suggestion: ban the promotion of Arch Linux for a being a mindless exercise in anti-GNU posturing!
[formerly known as Deckard]
"Emacs: making you posthuman since 1976"
Axiom #1: Emacs is a text interface prosthesis
Axiom #2: Org-mode gives you super cyborg organizational powers
cf. Why Emacs | Emacs-fu | EmacsWiki | Worg
User avatar
dmhdlr
 
Posts: 267
Joined: 2011-04-17 23:44
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby qjqqyy » 2011-06-02 18:34

the 2 ppl above just bumped into thread inactive for 2 months
and this thread is 1 year old
btw arch is seriously not bad
Image
qjqqyy
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 2011-04-10 11:35
Location: /dev/tty7

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby bw123 » 2011-06-02 19:41

the only thing I don't like about Ubuntu is how people say "I used Ubuntu and it worked fine," then tell you nothing else about the problem they are having _with Debian_

While this is a real quote, certain details have been omitted, changed and altered to protect the insane.
I have this problem my Z103doodad won't work, I had Windows 7 on this computer and it was slow, Mint was awesome but I can't afford it, and Ubuntu Rulez but I want to try Debian now. So will anybody help me with my Z103?
User avatar
bw123
 
Posts: 3532
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Location: TN_USA

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby cynwulf » 2011-06-02 19:52

qjqqyy wrote:the 2 ppl above just bumped into thread inactive for 2 months
and this thread is 1 year old

Sue me.

qjqqyy wrote:btw arch is seriously not bad

Use Arch, I hear it just feels faster...
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-09-25 08:49

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby qjqqyy » 2011-06-02 20:10

cynwulf wrote:
qjqqyy wrote:the 2 ppl above just bumped into thread inactive for 2 months
and this thread is 1 year old

Sue me.

qjqqyy wrote:btw arch is seriously not bad

Use Arch, I hear it just feels faster...

Before:
Code: Select all
#rc.conf
DAEMONS=(hwclock syslog-ng network netfs crond)

After:
Code: Select all
#rc.conf
DAEMONS=(@hwclock @syslog-ng @network @netfs @crond)


That's how those arch ppl make their boot so fast.
(I only background syslog and cron though.)
Image
qjqqyy
 
Posts: 298
Joined: 2011-04-10 11:35
Location: /dev/tty7

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby cynwulf » 2011-06-03 08:13

So long as it boots faster eh...? :roll:
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-09-25 08:49

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby Telemachus » 2011-06-03 11:28

Deckard wrote:I have a related suggestion: ban the promotion of Arch Linux for a being a mindless exercise in anti-GNU posturing!

Huh? I wasn't aware that Arch was anti-GNU. Hell, they even say GNU/Linux in some of their online materials.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System
User avatar
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby dmhdlr » 2011-06-03 11:59

Telemachus wrote:
Deckard wrote:I have a related suggestion: ban the promotion of Arch Linux for a being a mindless exercise in anti-GNU posturing!

Huh? I wasn't aware that Arch was anti-GNU. Hell, they even say GNU/Linux in some of their online materials.


It was a joke with some truth in it I hope (the forum's general distaste for RMS and his FSF, the distaste for advocacy of FLOSS, the legions of Vim users, Unix affectations like the no-patches-upstream-purity-Vanilla-simplicity fetish, aping BSD, saying that Linux sucks less than the alternatives, "programs that do one thing, and do one thing well," etc.). GNU is literally not Unix, whereas I am not sure Arch has made its mind up yet.
[formerly known as Deckard]
"Emacs: making you posthuman since 1976"
Axiom #1: Emacs is a text interface prosthesis
Axiom #2: Org-mode gives you super cyborg organizational powers
cf. Why Emacs | Emacs-fu | EmacsWiki | Worg
User avatar
dmhdlr
 
Posts: 267
Joined: 2011-04-17 23:44
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby Telemachus » 2011-06-03 16:27

Deckard wrote:It was a joke with some truth in it I hope (the forum's general distaste for RMS and his FSF, the distaste for advocacy of FLOSS, the legions of Vim users, Unix affectations like the no-patches-upstream-purity-Vanilla-simplicity fetish, aping BSD, saying that Linux sucks less than the alternatives, "programs that do one thing, and do one thing well," etc.). GNU is literally not Unix, whereas I am not sure Arch has made its mind up yet.

Your first two points might make sense. That is, if their forum has a lot of anti-RMS, anti-FLOSS sentiment, then I might see your point.

The rest of what you mention is irrelevant to assessing how someone feels about GNU.

  • Vim users are de facto anti-GNU or anti-FLOSS? I'm assuming that this is a joke. Otherwise, it's moronic. Using Emacs is not, all joking aside, an ideological litmus test (or a religious choice). It's a choice about a piece of software.
  • Unix affectations are bad? Unix affectations make you anti-GNU? That's odd. GNU is not literally not Unix. That is, the name is famously a pun and the code is not at all shared, but the entire point of the early GNU tools was to provide a free and open set of Unix-like tools. It's on their own website:
    GNU's own website wrote:The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop the GNU operating system, a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software—software which respects your freedom.

    Quite a lot of us here like the Unix philosophy too (to one degree or another).

Also, and much, much, much more importantly, how you feel about GNU is not equivalent to how you feel about FLOSS.

I'm probably wrong to care. You were probably being flip. But I don't like seeing choices about software conflated with ideological positions. It bothers me on principle.
"We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful."
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System
User avatar
Telemachus
 
Posts: 4677
Joined: 2006-12-25 15:53

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby dmhdlr » 2011-06-03 17:28

I'm sorry if I'm not making it easy to sort out the humor from the serious bits, and certainly I am being a bit flippant about how I approach my criticism of Arch, but I largely mean what I write. Some of it is my (trollish) reaction to Arch being brought up out of nowhere here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=64888&start=15#p373991. Obviously I don't think Arch users are anti-FLOSS; I said they are suspicious of the advocacy of (the use of) FLOSS, which is what the FSF exists to do aside from policing the GPL.

Unix affectations are bad? Unix affectations make you anti-GNU? That's odd. GNU is not literally not Unix. That is, the name is famously a pun and the code is not at all shared, but the entire point of the early GNU tools was to provide a free and open set of Unix-like tools.


Affectations are bad because they are self-consciously not genuine. Is Linux Unix? I may be wrong, but I am fairly certain it's not. If Linux entails a distinct mode of being from Unix, what does it mean to try to close the gap between the two? It's in that gap that I situate Arch and "The Arch Way" and all who endorse it. As for GNU is Not Unix, it literally means GNU is Not Unix. I am not saying GNU is contra-Unix; I am restating the gap between the two and Arch's elision thereof. As for Vim, I am not saying that choosing Vim over any other editor is a Unix affectation, but that the "legions of Vim users" as a whole assumes a different light before the background/scenario I have been sketching, one that isn't exactly aligned with GNU.

Telemachus wrote: But I don't like seeing choices about software conflated with ideological positions. It bothers me on principle.


Unfortunately I have run up against this misunderstanding everywhere within the FLOSS community: for people who go out of there way to use FLO software for the freedom it offers, FLOSS users have a very strange understanding of ideology, and indeed think that free software is somehow outside ideology (I am not convinced you can ever be outside of ideology, which is neither here nor there, but I emphatically assure you FLOSS isn't). Ideology is not a bad thing and understanding that would probably make the matter a lot less confusing for the FLOSS community. Indeed, given the importance they give to their "Social Contract" or manifestos, choosing to use Debian and choosing to use Arch are about two of the most ideologically charged choices you can make in computing today, much more immediately so then using Ubuntu or Fedora or SUSE, etc., and perhaps somewhere below using OSX.

Again, the anti-GNU tag was a bit of a joke and is to be understood as shorthand for what I explained above.
[formerly known as Deckard]
"Emacs: making you posthuman since 1976"
Axiom #1: Emacs is a text interface prosthesis
Axiom #2: Org-mode gives you super cyborg organizational powers
cf. Why Emacs | Emacs-fu | EmacsWiki | Worg
User avatar
dmhdlr
 
Posts: 267
Joined: 2011-04-17 23:44
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby Penguin Skinner » 2011-06-03 23:33

All of which proves yet again, the reason arguments on the internet become so passionate is because there's so little at stake.
Penguin Skinner
 
Posts: 709
Joined: 2005-09-15 20:37
Location: North by Northwest

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby makh » 2012-02-26 17:39

Soul Singin' wrote:Why does every loser who dislikes Ubuntu or got banned from Ubuntu Forums feel the need to bring his complaint over here? Why do heartbroken Ubuntu users feel the need to search for solace at Debian Forums?

I have no sympathy for them. Their whines and cries irritate me.

So I propose censoring discussion of Ubuntu. Not a complete ban. Just a ban on Ubuntu whininess. If all goes well, the Ubuntu exiles will leave us alone and bother the Fedora people instead. :mrgreen:
.


Its time linux people accept it. PEOPLE ARE MOVING AWAY FROM proprietory OSes.

its a freedom using linux, but some people (like me) are only intermediate level users, so such people be helped, so they can benefit from open source.

moreover desktop linux still has issues, opensource lacks the alternate versions, specially for hardware(s). Thats why it isnt par even 10% usage today.
HP Probook 440 G2: Arch, Debian Stable
Server: none
Past: Debian, Centos, Ubuntu, Opensuse
GUI: Openbox, Cinnamon
Chroot: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora
VM: Devuan

Employing the best:
Arabic
Debian
Homeopathic

For new: Try Linux Mint
User avatar
makh
 
Posts: 622
Joined: 2011-10-09 09:16

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby cynwulf » 2012-02-27 09:52

:roll:
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: 2008-09-25 08:49

Re: Should discussion of Ubuntu be censored?

Postby Randicus » 2012-02-27 10:03

cynwulf wrote: :roll:

I think we need a face-palm icon.
Randicus
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

PreviousNext

Return to Forum stuff & feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

fashionable