On 04/07/2011 01:10 PM, Manish Sinha wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Stereotactic<[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/07/2011 02:40 AM, Manish Sinha wrote:
On 04/06/2011 07:53 PM, Stereotactic wrote:
This debate can *never* be settled; so let it be.
True. So don't bring it up again ever if you can't defend.
Philosophical arguments can never be agreed upon. In the initial thread
I had rallied against the role of LUG's. How useless they can be if it
concerns the spread of libre software. Neither am defending; but well if
the context of the mail escapes your notice, I can't really help it :(
Thats good. Still, it's main flagship was always Gnome and hence there are
The most important upstream is still Debian, not GNOME (some-one
please correct me if wrong)
There was a talk about how little Canonical has supported Gnome (<1% of
the code base or whatever); it's all over the net so I wouldn't really
bother to prove my point.
Thats where the power of choice really is. However, Mark has mentioned
somewhere that Ubuntu *might* become one; its an unsettled question.
He hasn't mentioned anywhere AFAIK. Instead, Rick Spencer, Desktop
Engineering Manager has stated that Ubuntu is not moving to rolling
release.
The thread is *NOT* about rolling release. Please. It was, I repeat
again, the role of LUG's to spread the word for libre software. Despite
it's existence, I barely see any activity; heck, its not even mentioned
in the mainstream media. How many of us have made *ANY* effort to work
on those lines? Having a website or IRC presence alone does not count,
IMHO.
That's an abberation. Again your opinion.
It isn't opinion, but experience.
You voice opinion, not claim opinion. If there is a claim, then it
means it is based on some experience.
Ha! I'd let this pass :) No issues.
Rolling release can be based on Unstable or Testing versions; Unstable is
not so cool as testing really is. But I let that pass. And I mention *again*
that rolling release is *not* the point of debate.
Ubuntu does have rolling versions. It is called development versions.
You keep on updating it. Try it out.
:) First there is none; then there is "development version". Okay :)
Whatever you say, Ubuntu would have never gained so much popularity
with rolling release ever.
Your opinion.
Not opinion, but truth.
As per you? Okay :)
Linux; it's installer is best in the ecosystem. Period.
I am NOT objecting to say Ubuntu One as a service in the cloud, for example.
That's an additional module, not really a part of the main OS. Canonical has
full right to charge whatever it deems fit in the cloud. Paid software in
software centre really is pushing the commerce in user's desktops.
So what is wrong in users wanting to buy software? If they want, let
them buy. If you don't want to buy, don't buy.
The idea is against proprietary standards. Against the concept of "paid
software" in the base operating system. I "*repeat again*" that no one
objects to Ubuntu One as a cloud service where users "*may*" pay for
whatever or if they are so concerned about syncing issues. Neither does
anyone object if there is anything for "paid support".
But it's against the proprietary standards and as I mentioned, stiffling
EULA's that are bound to come with it, one day or other.
In the long run, it would slowly compromise with the ideals of Debian and
GNU.
How? All I find is talk and no evidence. You know when we talk about
Free we mean libre and not gratis.
Please head to http://gnu.org for more information
Again, it has no relevance to you assertions. Please try and understand
this. Canonical is profiteering from free code & turning on proprietary
standards without contribution back to community.
A non-techie user (as per your definition) would again be oblivious of
"fancy terms and conditions"; once the critical mass, in terms of users, is
reached, there would perhaps be no stopping Canonical to implement it's own
(jaundiced) terms.
The license is also "Terms and conditions" for using the software. I
hope you know this. Free software license are also as fancy to the
end-user as those 20 page long EULA.
Have you ever looked how long the full GPLv2 license is?
It's still "copyleft". I hate copyright in any manner whatsoever because
it's very nature is RESTRICTIVE. Sorry but the "length" of the licence
has nothing to do with it :) At least, it doesn't incapacitate the user!
GPL3/4/5 or whatever version may be 1000+ pages or whatever, still it
keeps the "freedom" intact.
Anyway I had a good laugh. Nice conspiracy theory.
Ha! Glad you did :) Ignorance is bliss :) Atleast, I made your day :)
It has already moved towards Unity and slowly poisoning
it's relation with other companies in the ecosystem refusing to play ball
with others.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.. http://goo.gl/NoyJS
:) http://imgur.com/kBhRq Hope this helps the attitude of some people :)
Perhaps it has *balls* enough but the future is going to stormy
for all of them.
Reading this same shit for past 5 years. Nothing happened
Reference to above quote; you are unlikely to see anything in the long
run/future :) So I'd let that pass again.
--
Manish
--
ubuntu-in mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
