Vista Forums - View Single Post

07-13-2007

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and
>>>>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the
>>>>>> downsides to Ubuntu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No established release policy
>>>>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months,
>>>>>> Ubuntu have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long
>>>>>> term supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set
>>>>>> release policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get the whole of Debian
>>>>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred
>>>>>> of the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are
>>>>>> not guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jumping the gun
>>>>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with
>>>>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get
>>>>>> fixed on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know
>>>>>> the score, 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally
>>>>>> fixed. But with Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting
>>>>>> edge package. These don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Easy installer or working installer
>>>>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would
>>>>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Non-Free
>>>>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free
>>>>>> software. Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they
>>>>>> have a very clear cut policy of not having such software on their
>>>>>> installers, and making the non-free repositories a separate choice
>>>>>> inclusion. There is no such division in Ubuntu repositories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lack of Multimedia
>>>>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it
>>>>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly
>>>>>> licensed but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not
>>>>>> so well supported as Debian. The repositories at
>>>>>> http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for Debian
>>>>>> multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All lies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove they are all lies or STFU!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove they aren't or STFU!
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> You idiot! You're the one calling them lies now YOU prove they're not
>> or STFU!
>> Well...!
>> Frank
>
>
> Well nothing. They're lies. What makes you think I care if you believe
> me or not?
>
> Alias

Then why do you keep responding mr atheists?
Frank

07-13-2007	#12 (permalink)
Frank n/a posts	Re: Bad Ubuntu Alias wrote: > Frank wrote: > >> Alias wrote: >> >>> Frank wrote: >>> >>>> Alias wrote: >>>> >>>>> NOT Alias - Thank GOD wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ubuntu is often hailed as the future for the GNU/Linux desktop and >>>>>> even for the server. This page is dedicated to exploring the >>>>>> downsides to Ubuntu. >>>>>> >>>>>> No established release policy >>>>>> Once concerned with a production-ready release every 6 months, >>>>>> Ubuntu have now decided that some releases will be "LTS" - long >>>>>> term supported. It's hard to depend on a distribution with no set >>>>>> release policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't get the whole of Debian >>>>>> Whilst the core packages are supported, this is only a few hundred >>>>>> of the 20,000 available in the Debian repositories. The rest are >>>>>> not guaranteed to work, and indeed many don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jumping the gun >>>>>> You get a very hot off the press Gnome and Evolution suite with >>>>>> Ubuntu, even in the LTS version. There are bugs that don't get >>>>>> fixed on the first Gnome and Evolution major releases. You know >>>>>> the score, 2.00 some bugs, 2.01 getting better, 2.02 finally >>>>>> fixed. But with Ubuntu you get the 2.00 release for it's cutting >>>>>> edge package. These don't get fixed up even in the LTS releases. >>>>>> >>>>>> Easy installer or working installer >>>>>> The installer for Ubuntu is in a state that most projects would >>>>>> consider experimental. Your mileage may vary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Non-Free >>>>>> Ubuntu have been toying with the idea of including non-free >>>>>> software. Whilst other distributions like Debian do this, they >>>>>> have a very clear cut policy of not having such software on their >>>>>> installers, and making the non-free repositories a separate choice >>>>>> inclusion. There is no such division in Ubuntu repositories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lack of Multimedia >>>>>> So, you may be lumbered non-free stuff you don't want, but when it >>>>>> comes to getting multimedia codecs (including those openly >>>>>> licensed but patent encumbered in some countries), Ubuntu is not >>>>>> so well supported as Debian. The repositories at >>>>>> http://debian-multimedia.org are a one stop shop for Debian >>>>>> multimedia, but don't support Ubuntu. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All lies. >>>>> >>>>> Alias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Prove they are all lies or STFU! >>>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> Prove they aren't or STFU! >>> >>> Alias >> >> >> You idiot! You're the one calling them lies now YOU prove they're not >> or STFU! >> Well...! >> Frank > > > Well nothing. They're lies. What makes you think I care if you believe > me or not? > > Alias Then why do you keep responding mr atheists? Frank
My System Specs