>Mint > Ubuntu > Debian. You choose how Free you want, and you get the level of ease-of-use according to that.
I'm sure you don't know what is ease-of-use. >> Systemd is a pain you get >Only if you care. Most people don't. My machine with 15.10 on started >booting /dramatically/ faster after the version upgrade that installed >systemd. I was impressed and like it. I don't give a damn about >scripts/logging format/etc., just that it works. boot time does not matter if the boot crashes. systemd is not reliable having boot crashes after Debian upgrades. Linux distros is not reliable, that's why I repeat: you don't know what is ease-of-use. Take a look at Apple's launchd, a simple init system which merges just 3 old daemons into init and do things asynchronously (speeding boot). The users want a bullshit software which respect him/her. And what I'm talking about respect is costumers right! If you buy a puzzle for your son and it comes with only half of parts you have the right to complain to who sell it and he must to give you a new puzzle. That's unfortunately does not work on open source world. Here, the users are treated as test subjects of softwares when they just want a supposedly "better" thing to use. That's why people feels happier using Mac or not leaving Windows. Debian has decreasing reliability sinse Debian 7. Now take a look on the shit of DBus. All the bugs I have seen using Linux programs like Firefox and G NOME or KDE things are all related to DBus. systemd uses DBus heavily, you cannot trust in this shit. Runit is available for Linux, Debian should be using it instead. >Yes, Debian is a bit like that. Which is why I use Ubuntu, which works >out-of-the-box and to which I can add proprietary codec support with a >single command. > debian and it is not so easy to update either if you > don't want to break things. >This is the direct opposite of my experience, but I appreciate that >others' experiences differ from mine. As I said, I've never once >managed to get an install of FreeBSD to /both/ see the internet /and/ >have a working GUI except via distros such as GhostBSD and PC-BSD. >Yes indeed. I do not mean to dismiss *BSD -- they're fine OSes if you >have the skills to use them. If you don't, Linux is easier and Ubuntu >is the easiest Linux in my extensive experience over the last 19 >years. The prove you don't know what are you talking about. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin are core OSes like GNU/Linux. PC-BSD, GhostBSD, Mac OS X are desktop OSes on top of one of that BSDs like Ubuntu is on top of GNU/Linux. have you used pure GNU/Linux system? if so you know you cannot compare Ubuntu and FreeBSD, but Ubuntu and PC-BSD. There are different paradigms on usability. What you are saying is "Object-oriented programming is easier than classical procudural imperative programming." and you are WRONG, they are just different paradigms. If you had used pure GNU/Linux you would see FreeBSD is easier to use than Linux. PC-BSD, Ubuntu and Mac have the same kind of usability. So stop spreading misinformation. >I am beginning to think that you live in a different, parallel universe to me. >"Support Debian/Ubuntu well" means: >* add repo >* install metapackage >And you're done. >N.B. Ubuntu does not include a compiler by default. Users having to >build from source does *not* mean "supports well". I have not had to >build components from source since the 1990s. I really don't know what is the world you live. You don't need add repo for Debian, 99% packages are on main. >I strongly dispute the "easy or easier to maintain" part, but >otherwise, sure, yes, that is great stuff and a good thing. You are wrong and now you know that. Please stop spreadding misinformation. _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
