|
install fedora and become the neck beard you were born to be
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2023 19:23 |
|
|
Awia posted:install solaris and become the neck beard you were born to be
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
trying to find rpms for centOS or trying to recompile packages was a pain in the rear end so i switched to ubuntu probably need to grow a longer neckbeard to boost my powers
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
i use solaris everyday at work 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
saucepanman posted:trying to find rpms for centOS or trying to recompile packages was a pain in the rear end so i switched to ubuntu it would be super cool if centos got updated packages more often
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Awia posted:i use solaris everyday at work same but just for some admin poo poo and mostly to use as a jump box to get to other machines which are all centos
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Awia posted:i use solaris everyday at work
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:meanwhile shows up as charging in the power settings Yep, so Ubuntu patches our poo poo and breaks it. Not GNOME's fault.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:As someone who spends about 90% of his development time cleaning up Debian-inherited messes, I seriously don't understand the endorsement for it that keeps getting cargo-culted around here. The whole point of Ubuntu was to polish up Debian and release it on a regular basis, and it still does that. what you call "mess" I call "policy". you poo poo out half baked non-compliant packages for a hobby. once, for a few months, a startup paid you for this dubious service. you, and people like you, are the problem with ubuntu, shadowhawk. gently caress the community repos. seriously. such a loving cesspool. ubuntu: if it isn't broken out of the box, there's a community package to break it later
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
p.s. shipping 6-month-old debian unstable doesn't count as "releasing" anything. it's already old and broken on day one, because debian's rolling release has been progressing while ubuntu faffs about with ad-supported desktops
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:what you call "mess" I call "policy". you poo poo out half baked non-compliant packages for a hobby. once, for a few months, a startup paid you for this dubious service. you, and people like you, are the problem with ubuntu, shadowhawk. gently caress the community repos. seriously. such a loving cesspool. i think youre expecting ubuntu to be freebsd its not that
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
scroogle nmaps posted:i think youre expecting ubuntu to be freebsd freebsd is plagued by a similar problem. only the core system is stable or supported. the "ports" system has historically been a casual, anything-goes playground. (maybe it has changed, i wouldn't know: I last saw a freebsd system "in the wild" in '06. and i was replacing it with linux even then.) canonical supports a ubuntu core with a handful of items, and then you rely on basement-dwelling pocky-chewing dipshits with no guidance to cooperate enough to patch and package the other 40,000 packages
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
They've completely reworked the ports / packages on freebsd recently, and it works rather well. You don't have to build much at all and everything is signed. Most anything is just pkg add ____ and you're good.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:They've completely reworked the ports / packages on freebsd recently, and it works rather well. You don't have to build much at all and everything is signed. Most anything is just pkg add ____ and you're good. ok so if you can get a time machine back to 1997 that will really help
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
It's more full featured than I'm describing, but as with many things I just want it to work without messing with it much and it provides that. It's easy to update and solid, it'll tell me exactly which packages need to be patched and you can configure it for whatever. Mostly I don't like spending time janitoring computers and bsd lets me do that. If you want to track current you can download the head from svn as well. Now OpenBSD on the other hand is stuck in the stone ages and is still using cvs and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
lunix itt
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:It's more full featured than I'm describing, but as with many things I just want it to work without messing with it much and it provides that. It's easy to update and solid, it'll tell me exactly which packages need to be patched and you can configure it for whatever. Mostly I don't like spending time janitoring computers and bsd lets me do that. If you want to track current you can download the head from svn as well. i don't doubt any of it. it's just totally irrelevant. non-linux unix is dead. for me, that was a painful realization, and a long time coming, but there you have it. no amount of wishing or hoping or praise will bring back freebsd and solaris Notorious b.s.d. fucked around with this message at 22:39 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Distributing working software is hard, because everybody knows that there's no such thing as "working software".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Distributing working software is hard, because everybody knows that there's no such thing as "working software". please don't post excerpts from the yum documentation
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:please don't post excerpts from the yum documentation Why not?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Why not? we cant afford for real projects to dip their standards that low
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
if you use yum -y do you pronounce it 'yummy'?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Hey I like arch linux. Can someone tell me why it is bad?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Hey I like arch linux. Can someone tell me why it is bad? because its a lunix
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
because they treat loving around with linux in its own right as a hobby, not a means to an end for getting actually useful poo poo done basically they casually break core packages on the reg because they don't like the feng shui or some poo poo and expect you to follow a bunch of mailing lists to see it coming and then pick up the pieces when the whole thing goes tits up stay the gently caress away from them (otoh i haven't used arch)
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:p.s. shipping 6-month-old debian unstable doesn't count as "releasing" anything. it's already old and broken on day one, because debian's rolling release has been progressing while ubuntu faffs about with ad-supported desktops
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The arch wiki was the first one that actually helped with anything and it helped a lot. I don't think I'd want it as a server though
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:what you call "mess" I call "policy". you poo poo out half baked non-compliant packages for a hobby. once, for a few months, a startup paid you for this dubious service. you, and people like you, are the problem with ubuntu, shadowhawk. gently caress the community repos. seriously. such a loving cesspool. like here you were thinking debian's standards were perfect and that the political model of having 1000 separate maintainers who can each veto constructive changes must be the one true way then reality comes and they can't ship a useful version of wine for years, half of them defect to double as Ubuntu developers, and major important architectural changes like the multiarch transition lag 2 whole years behind Ubuntu So then you fall back on the "standards" argument. Blind compliance to "standards" was the original justification behind splitting Wine into 12 different packages with names like libwine-oss that had to each be manually installed if you wanted arbitrary apps to work. For actual human users, though, just about every interesting app would break entirely due to this "helpful" feature. And why does this standard exist in Debian? So system administrators who knew exactly what they were doing could theoretically save about 15 kb of disk space by reducing the installation footprint of software that upstream never intended to be split. I'm sorry but that's really stupid. But, again, you have my sympathies. It's not easy to have your worldview shattered, especially when it was a very well ordered one.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:man I don't blame you for getting so mad; there's some serious cognitive dissonance between reality and your world view ShadowHawk Was Right debian people get pissed because they have a giant standard that works for nobody but get mad when people criticize because ITS A STANDARD
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Q. What is the point of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? A. This answer has its own wiki page, see Debian GNU/kFreeBSD why.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:ShadowHawk Was Right the key thing is that if you don't like a standard, you don't just poo poo out a substandard package, upload it, and call it a day. you have to, you know, convince other people it's a good idea and discuss it in appropriate venues and fix the standard ubuntu's community repos mop up all the people too stupid or obstinate to meet the (minimal) qualifications to upload to debian idiots who just can't work with others
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
its almost as though people working on a hobby project arent interested in dealing with that bs
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:the key thing is that if you don't like a standard, you don't just poo poo out a substandard package, upload it, and call it a day. you have to, you know, convince other people it's a good idea and discuss it in appropriate venues and fix the standard quote:ubuntu's community repos mop up all the people too stupid or obstinate to meet the (minimal) qualifications to upload to debian
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:its almost as though people working on a hobby project arent interested in dealing with that bs Then they shouldn't have launched and maintained OpenSSL! am i right? right?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Ubuntu and Debian are both terrible. Why doesn't Wine themselves publish binaries for Linux? Is it an actual real amount of work for you, ShadowHawk?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Or I could, you know, spend my time actually writing software and publishing it in a place with smarter organizational structure. lol what software do you write
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Ubuntu and Debian are both terrible. Why doesn't Wine themselves publish binaries for Linux? Is it an actual real amount of work for you, ShadowHawk? If you meant "Linux in general", it's because the binaries really do need to be built differently for each distro due to differences in the 50+ dependencies and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Sure, but why can't that be automated and written by the Wine team? It can't be more than an hour of work.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2023 19:23 |
|
|
you're a community contributor to ubuntu. you're a "member" only in the sense that anyone with an e-mail address can sign up for launchpad.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 03:45
|
|