Re: NeXT GNU Homage Project Work

[brunosonic]

>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 GNOME 
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.