.jpg)
Thread Jester Ping:
Round III
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or struck from the list...
Posted on 09/29/2006 8:45:47 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
When Bill Clinton made his speech to the Labour Party conference, he bamboozled a few by finishing with the word "Ubuntu".
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.guardian.co.uk ...
You've got to be friggin' kidding me! I guess if I book a trip to the Caribbean I have "ties" with Carnival Cruise Lines?
Why do I care?
First, why do you cite sources that you call leftist? So, you condemn those you disagree with as leftists, but cite them when you think you can make yourself look better?
Second, are you so frustrated now that you're posting to the wrong person...not once, but twice? Third, you didn't even read the source...it says this is the FIRST Ubuntu based Mepis. This, of course, is because the previous Mepis releases were NOT Ubuntu based, which is exactly my point. Thanks. Okay, let's try again. I'll talk slowly this time.
Mepis is BASED on Ubuntu, in that it is compatible with Ubuntu because the OS's are similar.
Mepis is not DERIVED from Ubuntu, which is what you suggested when you offered your little "Russian spaceman then Ubuntu then Mepis" timeline. Your own link confirms that Mepis was not created from Ubuntu.
That idea is patently wrong, and you know it. I know, because I was USING Mepis before there was an Ubuntu. It didn't happen the way you said, and your intent by suggesting so was to deceive, yet again; you were trying to tie Mepis to Russian authorship, which is a lie. Not that it would matter much if you were successful, but nevertheless, you failed.
However, there WAS a Multics. It WAS created by a Russian (not that it matters). It WAS the major inspiration for UNIX, and Multics definitely came first. Deny as you might, facts are facts no matter what you think of them.
If your philosophy is consistent, you'll have a REAL problem with that.
If your "philosophy" changes with the weather to suit whatever point you happen to be arguing at the time, you'll dismiss it with another of your childish statements.
Knowing you as I do, I'm fully expecting the latter.
"Again, Multics didn't come from Russia or a Russian, despite your obsession with foreigners. "
You're the one who brought it up. In fact, your obssession with foreigners is legendary in these parts.
And, neither Ubuntu nor Mepis came from Russia or a Russian either. So why did you bring it up to begin with?
Complete lie, absolute and obvious absurdity, but of course you've proven this is all you're ever capable of, other than insults. The one good thing is, based on your handle you've already began your burning.
Hilarious!
You were the first to suggest that merely having ties to Russia was enough to make you suspect. Now, I've shown that good ol' American UNIX also has those ties, you're ready to dismiss it, and actually have the audacity to suggest that the obsession with foreigners is mine, not your own obvious neurosis (How many of your posts DON'T feature the word "foreign"?).
Just as I thought.
To recap GE's philosophy (as of 10:00 AM, EST):
Ubuntu's Russian influcences = Evil beyond measure
UNIX's Russian influences = Good for America
As I said, your philosophy changes with the weather to suit whatever you're arguing at the time. Thanks once again for making it clear for all to see. You're too much fun.
I'm still trying to understand how Ubuntu can have Russian influences just because the guy who funds the project rode a Russian rocket to get to his vacation on the International Space Station. The Tin Thrush needs to realize that Ubuntu's founder is just a very rich businessman and venture capitalist -- Ubuntu is his way of philanthropy (as opposed to giving money to Planned Parenthood).
Oh wait, I know how it has Russian influences! Nmap is included in the distro, and we all know that was written by a Russian hacker.
So?
Open up an Ubuntu CD, and on the cover it explicitly states that the OS can be used, modified, etc.
The same has happened with other distributions. Ubuntu itself was based on Debian (as was Mepis).
SuSE was based on Slackware and Jurix and was the ancestor of the now-defunct UnitedLinux. It is currently the inspiration for SUPER (Suse Enhanced Perforance Release), SLICK (a one-CD minimalist distribution based on OpenSUSE
Red Hat is the ancestor of nearly 30 distros (e.g Fedora, CentOS, White Box, FermiLinux, Mandriva, Yellow Dog.
What's your point?
You obviously haven't shown anything, except how low you'll stoop to glorify foreigners, in this case trying to credit Russians with creation of an American product. The history of Multics is well known, it was created in America, the guy you mentioned was only a team member and doesn't even appear to be Russian LMAO. His mother was an American, and it appears he was too, but somehow you want to claim Unix is Russian? LOL what a freakshow this is!
The point remains is obvious, but still remains beyond your comprehension. It involves things like Bill Clinton, and transfers of technology to foreign governments and companies. I don't see why you're even concerned though, since you've admitted repeatedly you'd be just as happy if foreign products always exceed US products, so you're apparently not affected in the least. The fact that some of us, like myself, would prefer that American products exceed foreign ones not only now but in the future, shouldn't really be a problem for you. Or is it?
Only in your fantasies.
So when you say "BSD is crude and doesn't scale well, DUH." do you mean 'except apple?'
No, it's rather clear you're completely missing the point and resorting to semantics--and evenso your arguments are weak.
How many times must it be made? Where it comes from is NOT the number one criterion when determining the right product that you need. Rather, it's "Is it the right tool for the job?"
Many of us have weighed out the options and have determined that Linux is the right OS for our specific situations. If Windows or Mac turns out to be what one needs, we don't care.
In all honesty, I think I can speak for most of us here when I say that we're supportive of making sure that the user has the best tools for what they need to do, rather than ardently pushing one OS onto other people.
We realize that Linux isn't for everybody. Personally, I know it isn't for my parents (they need Windows for what they do) or my cousin (he needs a Mac).
Finally, I'm all for buying American--so long as the American product is cost-effective and does a superior job.
I'm going to pick the product that best meets my needs and gives me the biggest bang for my buck. Linux does just that; while I can't justify spending $300 for Windows and having it do only a tenth of what Linux has done.
Thread Jester Ping:
Round III
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or struck from the list...
Talking in circles once again isn't helping you, go back and read your own question,if you want to understand the answer. DUH DUH DUH. Until Red Flag Linux in China, and all the other ripoffs around the world start making free copies of US Unix code instead of the Linux code they're getting from IBM and Red Hat, you don't have a leg to stand on.
LOL quit repeating yourself, again and again. You've already admitted endlessly now you'd be just as happy if foreign products always exceed US products. But that doesn't explain why it bothers you so much that some of us would prefer that American products be superior to foreign ones. You obviously have no answer, and telling me again you would just as well use foreign products isn't necessary LMAO.
I asked: "And BSD did not give away US UNIX technology how?" After all the BSD licenses not only gives away the technology it allows whoever takes (say China) it to improve it on their own and sell their improved Unix technology back to us without giving us the improvements on 'our technology". I wanted to know why it was ok for BSD to give away UNIX technology but not Linux?
You said: "BSD is crude and doesn't scale well, DUH." So your answer was its ok for BDS because its crude and does not scale well..
Because you sated a lie as a fact I sarcastically said "We will have to tell Apple that...". At this point you could have tried to defend or qualify your lie (bsd is crude and does not scale) what did you do?
You said "Apple isn't free DUH AGAIN."
Because rather than try to defend a lie about BSD being crude or admit you were wrong/lied) you tried to spin the lie. but while Apples interface is not free Darwin the power behind it is BSD and is most certainly free. So the power behind Apple supercomputers is out there free and actually give more rights to foreign powers of "our UNIX technology" than Linux does.
Whatever dude. If that's the case, then show me the unadulterated post that proves I said it bothers me that people use American products as opposed to foreign ones.
I can tell you right now you can't produce it. It doesn't exist. You know why? Because neither I nor anyone else here has said such a thing.
You're seriously deluded and now completely irrational. As usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.