Re: Here we go again
> Both are indistinguishable on the desktop except for a few bells and whistles = duplication of effort.
It's the same code from the same team. That is not duplication of effort except for the work of integration.
Ubuntu was originally started as a GNOME-based effort, and while from 2011-2017 it had its own desktop, it has returned to its original course.
This is what people asked for:
And it's what they got.
Why GNOME? I wrote about that a decade ago:
In my opinion -- and I've spoken to the GNOME team, and they deny this -- it was a response to MS threats.
Before that, every distro, and even Solaris, used GNOME 2.
> And penguins complain and jeer at Microsoft updates. 491 updates...
Yes. It's a beta. It's not finished.
> Well I had better make a beeline to see this new wonder of the world, a whole new text editor. They
> moved millions of blocks to do this, and even know researchers are unsure exactly how they did it.
OK, TBH, myself, this seems a bit redundant. But GEdit has grown into a complex beast and the project want simpler, easier tools.
> It all just works, according to penguins.
Ever tried installing 2 different nVidia cards that need dissimilar drivers in a Windows box? I have. It's a nightmare. Ever tried combining nVidia and AMD cards? I have. It was very tricky, but I got it working. Ever built a custom install of Windows to keep the home directories elsewhere? I have. It's a *lot* of work.
I have nearly 35 years' experience with Windows, and over 25 with Linux.
I will give you a fully-installed, configured and provisioned standalone Linux box in a quarter of the time it would take with Windows.
Of course, if you don't want choice of bits -- well, I put ChromeOS Flex on a spare machine last week. It took 20min to burn the USB key (so still quicker than Win10 using Rufus) and under 10min to install. Needed no tweaks at all, runs great, goes like stink. I have Firefox and MS Word for DOS running on it too now, as an exercise. It's not dedicated to Chrome.
> There you go, working right out of the box. Ready for your grandmother and Uncle Tom Cobley.
It is correct. I am in Prague. It says so in the byline.
> Yes, that's exactly what is wanted in the Anglophone world - the locales set to Czech.
I live in the Czech Republic and have for 8 years. My partner is Czech; my child is Czech.
Your point exactly?
> A mere 290 updates. Don't even say it, penguins.
It was not even in beta yet. That is not bad, fewer than Fedora, and afterwards everything worked perfectly, without a single error.
> Apple would disagree with you. Out of the box.
I disagree with a lot of people. Sue me.
P.S. I'm typing on a Mac. The dock is on the left, where it belongs.
> Yes. Linux just does these weird things. You don't have UEFI? Well have this UEFI volume.
Honestly, this upsets and annoys me too.
That's why I complained about it a year ago.
It is unfixed. That is why I pointed it out in the article.
It is not just me:
> Not content with multiple and incompatible package managers, let's have Snaps and Flatpaks too.
In a different thread *you* were demanding a universal package manager.
> So what is the point of them?
Testing future tech for RHEL, in the case of Red Hat. So that people can build current, up-to-date servers for Ubuntu.
Servers are where the money is. All this stuff needs constant maintenance.
> One of the main selling points of Btrfs is not available to you unless you read the mind boggling
> words which some people call 'documentation'.
TBH, on this one, I have to agree. :-)
> AKA duplication of effort. They are both so similar in many ways that there is no point in having two
> of them.
I used Red Hat 4.x in 1995. It was awful. It was competition from Debian that made the RPM distros improve their game.
Debian was bad itself until Corel LinuxOS and then Xandros and then Ubuntu smoothed out the rough edges.
Without Ubuntu, no Mint. Without ChromeOS, no CoreOS. Without Gentoo, no ChromeOS.