21 Jul
2012
21 Jul
'12
9:58 p.m.
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very distressed that the above view
should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because that is
quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users etc., (all
splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open source so
much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would seem to me
more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that freedom.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to remain a maverick and to
swim against the tide as much as I like!
Lisi
21 Jul
21 Jul
10:21 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
In my opinion, the tablet-oriented direction that GUIs have gone to is
what is messing up things. I don't see the reason for change just for
changes sake. They're free to do so, go for it, but to then assert
that anyone that doesn't jump on their fad-wagon is holding things
back, is just silly.
A friend of mine was afraid to upgrade from Gnome 2 on Ubuntu 10.04,
because of Unity. She did not like Xfce, because it wasn't quite a
complete desktop experience. I showed her MATE, and got her upgraded
to 12.04, she couldn't be happier, because it is just like what she
was using. I haven't used Windows 8, but if it alters the traditional
desktop too much, I could definitely see more users hoping for an
alternative, so they could use their computer like they used to do..
so maybe going to OS X or to a Linux distribution with a traditional
desktop. I had the same experience when KDE 3.5 was taken away in
favor of KDE 4. I love having a ton of configuration options, but if
there were no Trinity, I'd probably be running MATE too.
So, to me, projects like Trinity and MATE are what are keeping
end-user Linux alive. They are both mature desktops that people have
gotten used to. I am really glad they exist! And I hope neither
changes much, except to support running programs written for other
environments and to support new technologies as they come along (like
bluetooth). Why fix what isn't broken?
Jeff
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Lisi <lisi.reisz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the above view
should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because that is
quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users etc., (all
splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open source so
much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would seem to me
more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that freedom.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to remain a maverick and to
swim against the tide as much as I like!
Lisi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
10:23 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
(oops, I apologize for my top post there, I forgot to move it)
11:11 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 07/22/2012 09:58 AM, Lisi wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the
above view should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it
distressing because that is quite some allegation - that we and Mate
users and Cinnamon users etc., (all splinter groups) are actually
damaging Linux, doing it harm.
That's because LUG == Linux User's Group, not Freedom User's Group. Its an
incredibly stupid thing to say, not only because it isn't true, but because none of
the software involved in the argument *is* Linux. People thus persuaded are losers, and
lusers. They have already accepted an economic model that their perceived competitors
pretend, but in which they themselves do not believe.
There is only one requirement for software proliferation and dominance, and companies like
Microsoft know it. Promiscuity[1]. Software diversity is the sign that you are
succeeding, not failing. If you aren't actively encouraging the mass distribution of
blue pills, and making sure people are taking them, they will start taking red pills. Its
as simple as that. Microsoft doesn't have to make sure their pills are getting
distributed as much as they have to make sure that every glass of water comes with a blue
pill by default. They have even started making sure they can attack anyone who wants red
pills nonetheless[2].
Operating systems like GNU and Android, that use the Linux kernel have taken over every
single market into which they have been introduced, except the desktop. Vendor lock in is
and has been the only bar preventing mass adoption.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is
why I like open
source so much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use
Windows.
I agree with you completely. What you are saying that you value your freedom most. If
that's true, stop endorsing "open source". "Open source" is a
greasy weaselly term invented by individuals trying very hard to endear themselves to
businessmen and financiers that do not want to leave our freedom alone and unmolested.[3]
LUGs are filled to the brim with trendy hipsters jumping around and regurgitating
"open source" vomit and attacking anyone who advocates the value of freedom with
ideas like diversity in desktop environment is hurting the adoption of GNU+Linux. It's
nonsense. It just isn't true.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux,
nothing would
seem to me more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that
freedom.
Freedom is not something that can be applied to software, because its just code. Code is
not self-actualizing. People have freedom and need to have software that includes source
code and terms that permit unrestricted use, study, modification, and redistribution to
prevent our freedom from being infringed. If you or I cannot use GNU+Linux with our
freedom intact, that is terminally harmful to us.
[1] http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html
[2]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/reality-check-microsoft-charging-vendor…
[3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
22 Jul
22 Jul
12:07 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Bryan Baldwin wrote:
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
--
Steven
Operating systems like GNU and Android, that use the
Linux kernel have
taken over every single market into which they have been introduced, except
the desktop. Vendor lock in is and has been the only bar preventing mass
adoption.
I think that Apple, which owns the iPhone, might have something to say about
Android having "taken over" the smart phone market.
The fact that
we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open
source so much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use
Windows.
I agree with you completely. What you are saying that you value your
freedom most. If that's true, stop endorsing "open source". "Open
source"
is a greasy weaselly term invented by individuals trying very hard to
endear themselves to businessmen and financiers that do not want to leave
our freedom alone and unmolested.[3] LUGs are filled to the brim with
trendy hipsters jumping around and regurgitating "open source" vomit and
attacking anyone who advocates the value of freedom with ideas like
diversity in desktop environment is hurting the adoption of GNU+Linux. It's
nonsense. It just isn't true.
12:18 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 12:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I think that Apple, which owns the iPhone, might have
something to
say about Android having "taken over" the smart phone market.
Of course they would. But would it be true? Maybe, maybe not[1].
If you are only comparing how top of the line smartphones are doing
against the iPhone, like the Samsung Galaxy S3, then maybe you'll have
a point. But heaps of people can't afford one of those any more then
they could afford an iPhone. There are a shittonne of budget devices
that Android is on that aren't competing with iPhone because Apple
isn't producing any budget phones.
[1] http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405571,00.asp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC0bZAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEINLsH/iG8XMWDIdzjSJQbna+LqOmH
xSIsuFlrhIGOAAvEhfdS9fbWxryiAXG8Wqg6ALzWVlMPSxPFDxDrvL1nMvhgmAyt
YKLIrVL9Q3cuLu57P55bP2w7hZkY7yzIqHanCMrLh7SyxMyhEiOQ75ohdR7eXDeZ
uQlEaizL7ThyvR5neD6df59NBfuKsEfxFq3ef2mVtLRO7yPdsArCMGx3Tz2D4rel
q21X7RNbmQpxD0pIcMH0yVUEf2mg4nzECmvUYue0jYOurT1vdQfWCy2YBOkGvsdN
FINX4BJ9vHtQ0ZAOt/t8qc5HWKDCzBB+dz/ZYHX4pwPAfMign9wChY2TSNtLimc=
=41xt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:17 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
I agree with you completely. What you are saying that
you value your
freedom most. If that's true, stop endorsing "open
source". "Open source"
is a greasy weaselly term invented by individuals trying very hard to
endear themselves to businessmen and financiers that do not want to leave
our freedom alone and unmolested.[3] LUGs are filled to the brim with
trendy hipsters jumping around and regurgitating "open source" vomit and
attacking anyone who advocates the value of freedom with ideas like
diversity in desktop environment is hurting the adoption of GNU+Linux. It's
nonsense. It just isn't true.
12:33 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 12:17 PM, <=K wrote:
I disagree completely. If it weren't for open
source software,
Trinity wouldn't even exist, Linux neither. If you find no value in
OSS you should switch to Windows immediately.
That's not just incorrect, it's not even wrong. "Open source" is a
lame buzzword to make businessmen and shallow IT people feel trendy
and cool. Its a poor plagiarism of the original free software
philosophy, watered down and diluted so you won't notice when your
freedom is actually getting purloined behind your back. If you take
"open source" away from free software you do not end up with Microsoft
Windows, you end up with freedom.
Trinity and the Linux kernel owe their existence to choosing freedom
respecting copyleft terms in their distribution, not the term "open
source."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC0puAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIAOcIAMyg79ILKrpwdVCLlhsFPSUF
cdEpTfPmp1J5Mw8eepId19wRSAKJ3H/GkMsykQZArOnW01PzEfI3YFi8IMYOoFlq
M6G6Ehxrhnzk3MtKSGKXNskDT3mLturY2YvbphFcWwSiT+5XjZa3bgEYTMNd3Km+
dAkvzoV+8JGQC0dnG+rXmXedR3CPRkjZh4wiOndHXNVAUyx9Odaenpw4yzbbTYrB
QxWBfV+loXT7WR/nQEeTAbjK+yCkEMtGvVPHrDiv5wL+MaQnhVuJIqwFhg9qL908
e34a9NKQRwcVhahnPOh9j8R/CFo49f1TC8tmINwTQDdRZuFYY3I57PXqIj6eB+Y=
=6rfg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:40 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Nah they just owe it to having source code available. The BSDs are an
example.. none of your philosophical freedom talk there, but they exist.
GPL is just better because the dervative works also have source available.
No elitist attitude necessary.
12:52 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 12:40 PM, <=K wrote:
Nah they just owe it to having source code available.
The BSDs are
an example.. none of your philosophical freedom talk there, but
they exist. GPL is just better because the dervative works also
have source available. No elitist attitude necessary.
That's still wrong. You aren't thinking clearly. The availability of
source code is utterly and completely useless unless you have the
unrestricted freedom to use, study, modify, and redistribute.
Apart from one old and deprecated version, all BSD licenses are free
software licenses. They predate the term "open source." You aren't
providing an argument against my argument. You are just repeating my
argument back to me. Those projects owe their existence to their
freedom, not the term "open source."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC07lAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIQNgH/2s1N8Cn7mKmjT3JrKftMe1e
LToikGHkiVRuGdgLaYq5fWiNyXMr+hEI+m1pxxeg5VYFLGmX380ugTaod6HScxhA
Xp8LI82KbE7iZ7GqzJGOsdhmpBHjAhwC+8Ddo1tAeG15kYpl5kSyN3hPoeRRFXJR
nPi+EEx63MYN2+vs/n1M9uATbeu+Ft8Tv0fEndPeF4lfRcm17iLOg/loQk9XFUu+
9pWimxdTxRHkeI6vyLcVcZhMRVNY/nCfLw7//YYScXkuK1zVbCUuvx8RUVXOmoZn
+WfY80ABBh7/4VMMLw8plNtYTpXy7KybqeBB8fEv3oLW3kC3E3GZxGX143y1c8A=
=o7FU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
21 Jul
21 Jul
11:25 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the above
view
should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because that
is
quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users etc.,
(all
splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open
source so
much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would seem to
me
more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that freedom.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to remain a maverick and to
swim against the tide as much as I like!
Lisi
My take on this is that we are observing the first major split between
producers and consumers in the computing market. Prior to the iPhone and
similar devices, both consumers and producers had to use the same hardware
and software for their disparate tasks. Now that hardware has become
smaller and software more powerful, consumers can for the first time use a
"computer" that functions more or less like a video game--i.e. it is "easy
to use", "pretty", "simple", it "connects people
together", etc.
Producers on the other hand will continue to demand more and more power to
fuel their increasingly complex tasks and meet their wall clock deadlines.
I have had comments from people who "got used to" KDE4 and Unity, and when
they tried TDE again years later, they found that they were vastly more
productive in a tasks accomplished vs. hours spent metric.
Consumers will always outnumber producers, therefore they will always have
the largest vote. Producers on the other hand know what they need and
will pay lots of $$$ to get it, even as the software they require becomes
more and more of a niche item. TDE is one of the few projects that can
continue to satisfy those needs, and in reality it will have very little
impact on the consumer market for Linux.
Just my $0.02. :-)
Tim
11:31 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
I was at a
local LUG meeting today and was very distressed that the
above
view
should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because
that
is
quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users etc.,
(all
splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open
source so
much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would seem
to
me
more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that freedom.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to remain a maverick and
to
swim against the tide as much as I like!
Lisi
My take on this is that we are observing the first major split between
producers and consumers in the computing market. Prior to the iPhone and
similar devices, both consumers and producers had to use the same hardware
and software for their disparate tasks. Now that hardware has become
smaller and software more powerful, consumers can for the first time use a
"computer" that functions more or less like a video game--i.e. it is
"easy
to use", "pretty", "simple", it "connects people
together", etc.
Producers on the other hand will continue to demand more and more power to
fuel their increasingly complex tasks and meet their wall clock deadlines.
I have had comments from people who "got used to" KDE4 and Unity, and when
they tried TDE again years later, they found that they were vastly more
productive in a tasks accomplished vs. hours spent metric.
Consumers will always outnumber producers, therefore they will always have
the largest vote. Producers on the other hand know what they need and
will pay lots of $$$ to get it, even as the software they require becomes
more and more of a niche item. TDE is one of the few projects that can
continue to satisfy those needs, and in reality it will have very little
impact on the consumer market for Linux.
Just my $0.02. :-)
Tim 
22 Jul
22 Jul
1:12 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012, Timothy Pearson wrote:
Consumers will always outnumber producers, therefore they will always
have the largest vote.
"Consumers" == Appliance Operators.
And they, in turn, will always outnumber the rest of us. sigh...
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
Pueblo, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
38.238N 104.547W | config.com | DM78rf | SK
12:01 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Lisi wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the above view
should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because that is
quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users etc., (all
splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
When Linus Torvalds comes out publicly and states that he is moving to Windows
because people are using the wrong desktop environment, that is when I will
give credence to the above ignorant, arrogant opinion.
I have worked for a company doing Linux consultancy for 10+ years, and we have
spent vast amounts of time and effort evangelizing for Linux to the business
community and government. I would say that, of all the reasons why people
stick to Windows and don't migrate to Linux, "too many competing desktop
environments" is about #87, just below "don't know whether to call it
LINE-UCKS or LIN-EX" and "My astrologer told me never to use a computer
program starting with L".
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is
why I like open source so
much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Please excuse my language, but opinions are like arseholes -- everyone has got
one, but not everyone should expose theirs in public.
I would pay no attention to a bunch of ignorant people, especially since they
are not in a position to do anything except yack-yack-yack. But if you insist
in arguing with them, I suggest that you tell them that you agree that there
are too many desktop environments. Thank them for their tireless work in
decreasing the amount of software freedom, and ask them to come back and
report once they have got KDE 4, Gnome 3 and Unity closed down. Ratpoison for
everyone!
http://www.linuxgoodies.com/review_rat.html
--
Steven
5:02 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
120721 Lisi wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today
Is it out of order to ask which city it meets in ?
and was very distressed that the above view should be
expressed forcefully.
It sounds like a few trolls trying to provoke an argument.
Certainly, it's not the view of the vast majority of free-software users.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to
remain a maverick
and to swim against the tide as much as I like!
You don't have to be a maverick to want to go on using KDE3 = Trinity.
I was a long-time user of KDE 3 , tried the KDE 4.x desktop once,
took another look at Fluxbox & found it a good enough substitute
& have been using it ever since. At that time, it looked
as if KDE 3 would disappear altogether: Trinity hadn't started.
Since then, I've adopted a number of KDE4 apps, eg Gwenview + Okular,
but continue to want to use 3 KDE3 apps, which KDE4 doesn't have:
hence my subscribing to this list a few days ago & asking for advice.
I can certainly understand others wanting to use the whole KDE3 desktop.
As a Gentoo user since 2003, I'm on the fringe of Linux orthodoxy,
but like other Gentoo users, I would never go back to a binary distro:
the freedom to install just what I want & configure it how I want
is much too important for comfort & for productivity.
Any chance there's a Trinity supporter
prepared to make it available for Gentoo ?
PS many years ago cities Worldwide wiped out their tram systems
& a lot of them built networks of urban expressways (motorways);
they soon found that the latter clogged up with traffic,
while downtown neighbourhoods deteriorated into slums.
Toronto & a few other cities stopped expressway building in time
& spent the money on renewing their street railways:
here at least, we still have healthy safe downtown neighbourhoods.
Nowadays increasingly, cities Worldwide are installing light rail lines
in an attempt to revive their central areas & relieve auto congestion.
That's a parallel with the GUI + touchscreen fad now in vogue
in contrast to the traditional CLI + keyboard method of using computers.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
6:37 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 05:02 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
I was a long-time user of KDE 3 , tried the KDE 4.x
desktop once,
took another look at Fluxbox & found it a good enough substitute &
have been using it ever since. At that time, it looked as if KDE 3
would disappear altogether: Trinity hadn't started.
KDE v3.x was my de jour until it went away. I remember with particular
fondness the compatability with Compiz and transparent panels that
could slide away completely out of view. I couldn't do the later in
GNOME, there was always at least a bar of 1 pixel's thickness on the
edge. Maybe I never dug deeply enough to know :(
Used GNOME until v3 was being pushed around. I know Gentoo hasn't
pushed it yet, but I'd been using Arch when it happened, and it
completely foobar'd my work set up. I quit Arch and GNOME on the same
day. Gentoo + Fluxbox as well, here. =)
As a Gentoo user since 2003, I'm on the fringe of
Linux orthodoxy,
but like other Gentoo users, I would never go back to a binary
distro: the freedom to install just what I want & configure it how
I want is much too important for comfort & for productivity.
Any chance there's a Trinity supporter prepared to make it
available for Gentoo ?
I'm building a cross compiler factory from various sources to support
my Yeeloong 8101_B. I have some Raspberry Pi coming, so x86, x86_64,
and ARM support are going to be included at some point, too.
Although desktop environments are going to be part of a separate
related project, I'm looking at MATE and Trinity to be the forerunners
there, too.
Until then, maybe this will help Gentooians ;)
http://wiki.hasnoname.de/tde:trinity-overlay_on_funtoo_gentoo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC5+9AAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIq18IAKl55tbyfYWwyEKh3IyYAlaK
W/X0En1f/xHqUO+lnmubju5+56WDoOnkMImYFm82NCQgIhEgfdLtgSWDu1e13who
6gy9cmWPduHLJts7voKX+Wb0oPJMJmhcI+qVr/eRaiMVvQNevOTTXNizdU6deEBf
vDg1A922PbT5DoNyO/qDPV/vJVlPmxsDXsOT5vyQHLiPlKWiLX7kWrwooXYUCxlz
ia1TnaVwT4gsLUHMXj/7c8d8qxKNg6NZoT5kCuy7RNjYNZmFZXF7M40mz+nuJB8+
Tab67gGS0D9iDN1VYSXd0Px07snqnV3KKkF4+cSPqJAX35bYxemVPsdIy3+/Nc0=
=F/5o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:59 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
120722 Bryan Baldwin wrote:
On 07/22/2012 05:02 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
Yes, it should help others, but my 3 apps are not included.
As I said earlier, I'll try to compile from source & install manually:
the prefered dir seems to be /opt/tde/ .
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Any chance there's a Trinity supporter
prepared to make it
available for Gentoo ?
maybe this will help Gentooians ;)
http://wiki.hasnoname.de/tde:trinity-overlay_on_funtoo_gentoo
9:25 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 08:59 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
120722 Bryan Baldwin wrote:
At the rate I'm going with my project, in ninety days I *might* be at
the point that I'm testing packages on top of my base system. I'd be
delighted to see MATE and Trinity running on a Yeeloong 8101_B :D
maybe this will help Gentooians ;)
http://wiki.hasnoname.de/tde:trinity-overlay_on_funtoo_gentoo
Yes, it should help others, but my 3 apps are not included. As I
said earlier, I'll try to compile from source & install manually:
the prefered dir seems to be /opt/tde/ . -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC8cWAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEICGAIAK+dJroBzZ52gRGTWrUBSQnS
sHAQT9bjKaD9UaNWMW6SaisFx3jrW57N5cA/88n1wkAfzJkKUhXMXD0gd3lENdvL
Rt4FJiVkdByWoO/Itd1pYWBPAAAzO3vwl1K7LkJ2HmvjJNqiJGGMUG4bFuysOUSZ
9wRa5fzKMItbSBFEWghdVyn3wuB46yDRHCi19zWFVs91/dt599LtTR08WrtIPmBK
eD02H0O0x5+hL5Y9l6gqNLIWiCXcn86Ev2ygLkNmm1716GyA1xRv7bqX93heP3N1
n/n2ZjTJAG4eZgCk6TUzG4lDw351SgQB2z1kv/y676Y9K8eF7mf/LVGoM1QBfDQ=
=Wyk3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Bryan Baldwin <bryan(a)katofiad.co.nz> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 05:02 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
I actually use KDE v4.x with Compiz. I prefer it and the keybindings
to KDE's compositing.
That said, I still like Trinity. My daughter can't stand KDE4, and
since I support her installation, I still manage Trinity.
I was a long-time user of KDE 3 , tried the KDE
4.x desktop once,
took another look at Fluxbox & found it a good enough substitute &
have been using it ever since. At that time, it looked as if KDE 3
would disappear altogether: Trinity hadn't started.
KDE v3.x was my de jour until it went away. I remember with particular
fondness the compatability with Compiz and transparent panels that
could slide away completely out of view. I couldn't do the later in
GNOME, there was always at least a bar of 1 pixel's thickness on the
edge. Maybe I never dug deeply enough to know :( Used GNOME until v3 was being pushed around. I know
Gentoo hasn't
pushed it yet, but I'd been using Arch when it happened, and it
completely foobar'd my work set up.
And I think this is the crux of the issue. (For Lisi's original post.)
Everybody has a workflow that is comfortable for them. Some people
just take whatever Redmond or Cupertino (or London, for that matter)
shove at them and adapt. What Lisi referred to as the "mavericks" will
go to longer lengths to maintain the computing environment that is
comfortable for them. As I have said on IRC before, "I'm not going to
change my computing paradigm so that some guy in a suit, or some guy
in a turtle neck, or some guy who's been to space can make a buck."
(Because forcing unity on users puts Canonical in the same category as
the others...)
Linux gives me the freedom to make these choices and developers to
write these applications/desktops. And if people to choose to do this,
it is in no way damaging to Linux. You just keep on doing what you're
doing, Lisi and others.
--b
24 Jul
24 Jul
12:25 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/23/2012 01:38 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:
Some people just take whatever Redmond or Cupertino
(or London,
for that matter) shove at them and adapt. What Lisi referred to as
the "mavericks" will go to longer lengths to maintain the
computing environment that is comfortable for them. As I have said
on IRC before, "I'm not going to change my computing paradigm so
that some guy in a suit, or some guy in a turtle neck, or some guy
who's been to space can make a buck." (Because forcing unity on
users puts Canonical in the same category as the others...)
I can't follow you to Canonical with this example, because of the
multiplicity of environments available to Ubuntu. You don't _have_ to
take Unity, afaict. I avoid Ubuntu like AIDS, but it is largely made
of free software. You can change it, you can remove the non-free bits
and call it gNewSense.
You can't do those things with Microsoft or Apple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQDetqAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIy50H/i64JZgOrzBO9m3uSrK/ww5z
02jxRIgslVpKxytxffOchKGqz2yxBbzQYQVgPcqsQzd1nmkJMvrKOjCK9CLa00V7
p0Q4FJmkkvOosjRPxA8GAIwHHCezqXd3ASmVzj5kw6WTj1ZTTcmiUSB4UT9DN5N0
/8u4piOVj6p4rNEk4lzROjir0jiqswpb6KywER4UJvSBqcw9zWmuKjP0NA4fLU6u
XjiWcWrteeM8YKEZV558p2foqSJGi5WPco49lwxs+aN2naecSqb4j42wLyR4hR90
MhDWv55VC1ClbjD78TwkZHzIhiwzhsBh+FDuUXk/2jNJ/98A1ZRmP+TQescnIyo=
=mY6C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
25 Jul
25 Jul
12:59 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Bryan Baldwin <bryan(a)katofiad.co.nz> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/23/2012 01:38 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:
The reason I include Canonical because they have systematically
eliminated desktops other than Unity. Yes, the others are available,
but I credit that more to Debian than Ubuntu. Canonical developed
Unity in answer to Gnome 3, as well as dropping support for KDE (which
was picked up by Blue Systems). Out of the box, Unity is now the only
option under Ubuntu. Yes, you can install the other desktops, but that
is, IMHO, a result of the Open Source underpinnings of the OS, rather
than a conscious decision of Canonical's. I may be doing them a
disservice in this respect, but unlike Mate and Cinnamon (and the
other desktops available for Linux), Unity has never been made
available to other distros. Mate and Cinnamon, OTOH, are available on
several distros.
Some people just take whatever Redmond or
Cupertino (or London,
for that matter) shove at them and adapt. What Lisi referred to as
the "mavericks" will go to longer lengths to maintain the
computing environment that is comfortable for them. As I have said
on IRC before, "I'm not going to change my computing paradigm so
that some guy in a suit, or some guy in a turtle neck, or some guy
who's been to space can make a buck." (Because forcing unity on
users puts Canonical in the same category as the others...)
I can't follow you to Canonical with this example, because of the
multiplicity of environments available to Ubuntu. You don't _have_ to
take Unity, afaict. I avoid Ubuntu like AIDS, but it is largely made
of free software. You can change it, you can remove the non-free bits
and call it gNewSense. You can't do those things with Microsoft or
Apple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQDetqAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIy50H/i64JZgOrzBO9m3uSrK/ww5z
02jxRIgslVpKxytxffOchKGqz2yxBbzQYQVgPcqsQzd1nmkJMvrKOjCK9CLa00V7
p0Q4FJmkkvOosjRPxA8GAIwHHCezqXd3ASmVzj5kw6WTj1ZTTcmiUSB4UT9DN5N0
/8u4piOVj6p4rNEk4lzROjir0jiqswpb6KywER4UJvSBqcw9zWmuKjP0NA4fLU6u
XjiWcWrteeM8YKEZV558p2foqSJGi5WPco49lwxs+aN2naecSqb4j42wLyR4hR90
MhDWv55VC1ClbjD78TwkZHzIhiwzhsBh+FDuUXk/2jNJ/98A1ZRmP+TQescnIyo=
=mY6C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
9:33 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/25/2012 12:59 PM, Brad Alexander wrote:
unlike Mate and Cinnamon (and the other desktops
available for
Linux), Unity has never been made available to other distros
Well, if Unity is under a free software license, I can't agree. Just
because no one other then Canonical sees any value in supporting it
doesn't make it wrong.
If Unity has a non-free license, then I agree with you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQD71zAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEILpYIAKelozy+ib0DC+ioWGf1Yofz
VGQwJcufq7J2IQ15EoBt4pjrV3pqvf2KocGy16Z/RQjs8LKrCrFbOhk3S0hE9f9p
uKqf3aVHSkojpTRp/F7KmufkPTJ5sp5PNUGKeDZpV+uMlkh9cacZQnhdupf8VEnp
A/CyDMvWhY7pCrnp8qJ1G2NMQ9FQScia0oS2BLJHb/PoyQznm9qHHp2gFTLVPPH7
LWj3kDK9YM50ii2nVwC5RshRibHDpFg1jjsfhtLRhdaXLzCJkT+imS48kPEvv7JU
84L7DtmAwOEdwdDQS/On9XlRiOokCTBT0lfMtr9NLzK6pyg0rex2nWND9sCHwBA=
=fhhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:06 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 25 July 2012 05:33, Bryan Baldwin <bryan(a)katofiad.co.nz> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/25/2012 12:59 PM, Brad Alexander wrote:
being open source and being a good project are very different. For
example when red hat has to release their kernel patches they just
send a giant crappy tarball out and say "here we released it". Ubuntu
is the same way. Unity does not work well with others, doesnt work on
most distros, has weird patches required for low level libraries, is
rather hackey... the source is available, but it doesnt mean its
usable
just because its open source doesnt mean its a good project
Calvin
unlike Mate and Cinnamon (and the other desktops
available for
Linux), Unity has never been made available to other distros
Well, if Unity is under a free software license, I can't agree. Just
because no one other then Canonical sees any value in supporting it
doesn't make it wrong.
If Unity has a non-free license, then I agree with you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQD71zAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEILpYIAKelozy+ib0DC+ioWGf1Yofz
VGQwJcufq7J2IQ15EoBt4pjrV3pqvf2KocGy16Z/RQjs8LKrCrFbOhk3S0hE9f9p
uKqf3aVHSkojpTRp/F7KmufkPTJ5sp5PNUGKeDZpV+uMlkh9cacZQnhdupf8VEnp
A/CyDMvWhY7pCrnp8qJ1G2NMQ9FQScia0oS2BLJHb/PoyQznm9qHHp2gFTLVPPH7
LWj3kDK9YM50ii2nVwC5RshRibHDpFg1jjsfhtLRhdaXLzCJkT+imS48kPEvv7JU
84L7DtmAwOEdwdDQS/On9XlRiOokCTBT0lfMtr9NLzK6pyg0rex2nWND9sCHwBA=
=fhhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
9:30 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/26/2012 02:06 AM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
just because its open source doesnt mean its a good
project
Well, when I said it isn't wrong, I mean not morally wrong. If it is
extremely stupid technically that's Canonical's jeopardy. Other
distributions do not seem to be suffering without it. It doesn't
prevent users from switching to what works.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQEGVcAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIhAsH/3/jhxD9hiswXJREh3WB8nRE
m1fwE9mTIGzztoiV8Gpvl15VNxM9gdK/xpoT9rNRjjEsvc0K7mlKhlk4d6M2g2cC
Zx+NgExdGZnn4ynvaJNtLTIOOtbI5s6GRl+UK366OMmmwPyoAJssWbxWZDT3I+1z
F0P85nNP6cgjB8ZpSFclmQUBLHLzY0Y4BS5ScfdTLJf2IKTRhi+X8Fdrmd220fAJ
PODdDkZVIWnN+2onriKdMk5N8ME+c1zqV4KmNSzTi27PayNhVwcjJoexodcar4Jy
ILDVfWHKp9JVapxvjefVW88wqU5pR9AL4NUAX+LOHOkq/jkTndDypDPa+uNzkrQ=
=dqJV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:47 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Bryan Baldwin <bryan(a)katofiad.co.nz> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/25/2012 12:59 PM, Brad Alexander wrote:
Concur. And if I am honest, I could not be bothered to look up the
license. Like you, I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I went back to
dumped Ubuntu and went back to Debian around Gutsy. Between the broken
encryption in the installer and the beginnings of what I saw as the
writing on the wall (which has borne out over the years), I'm much
happier with pure Debian.
unlike Mate and Cinnamon (and the other desktops
available for
Linux), Unity has never been made available to other distros
Well, if Unity is under a free software license, I can't agree. Just
because no one other then Canonical sees any value in supporting it
doesn't make it wrong.
If Unity has a non-free license, then I agree with you.
9:50 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/26/2012 04:47 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:
Concur. And if I am honest, I could not be bothered to
look up the
license. Like you, I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I went back to
dumped Ubuntu and went back to Debian around Gutsy. Between the
broken encryption in the installer and the beginnings of what I saw
as the writing on the wall (which has borne out over the years),
I'm much happier with pure Debian.
I was doing Sarge back in the day when I tried Ubuntu 6.10. I still
have the CD I'd burned. I used it for about 90 days and went back when
Etch came out. I may have already mentioned I left Debian for Arch
when I discovered GFDL packages in non-free. I did Arch and from
scratch for awhile, then Gentoo and from scratch after that.
Unity is GPLv3, btw. I suppose after several years of development it
might reach a point where it could be ported around without so much
effort. If Mr. Morrison is correct when he says Unity requires
excessive low level patching (and I have no reason to think
otherwise), I imagine its development strategy will largely be
Canonical's burden. One might think that's what they wanted all along.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQEGoyAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIC1kIAK63K8GJ77Ppqe6i1aS/Tlla
/k/rau/kKwZE4EqgPSbrRFXC9xI9E8I9aqxNqlBggQmMgIBFNsV30fEkbcw3jGdS
A7m65TMJ9NW1Br7PWwTQAqE6Qqbh3xNcrghOGQuBj1ZmM55tj0B32jXo6xbKw6iV
/pkHanUNyl8tKVp3WIB7KjYZTm+WBqwusiFMVC8x7Vb5GEtwx/D8BIHn1bXTq1qA
/0vXJLt7REDyxx6pJFqq/1LDdGqM8bce8qd6AYrm1QhWr7yseg1z6o+uHwtSm/wU
W60WhJ4x+cjhw0Dau1/Ex5xA1R19pshfcBTE5hTQ5JAEPWdxaMytxQuM5eOBw2Q=
=caM7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10:32 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:50:42 +1200
Bryan Baldwin <bryan(a)katofiad.co.nz> wrote:
Unity is GPLv3, btw. I suppose after several years of
development it
might reach a point where it could be ported around without so much
effort. If Mr. Morrison is correct when he says Unity requires
excessive low level patching (and I have no reason to think
otherwise), I imagine its development strategy will largely be
Canonical's burden. One might think that's what they wanted all along.
Judging from the contents of the unity-gentoo overlay, it requires a
patched glib, xorg-server, gtk+, assorted qt bits, and $DEITY knows
what else. So Unity can be installed on other distros with some work,
since someone has evidently done it, but it seems like a lot of effort
for little benefit for anyone not absolutely in love with it.
22 Jul
22 Jul
6:43 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 05:02 PM, Philip Webb wrote:
Toronto & a few other cities stopped expressway
building in time &
spent the money on renewing their street railways: here at least,
we still have healthy safe downtown neighbourhoods.
Funnily enough, I work in this arena doing the on board vehicle
software and embedded systems that helps us manage bus, rail, tram,
and ferry sign predictions for service's arrival/departure. It is
true, forward thinking cities are investing in light rail. Auckland,
NZ is planning a CBD system to augment the larger, preexisting rail
that services outlaying suburbs. =)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQC6ElAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIj1wH/3a/iMd1mk9LiVi/77I/MwLl
nWeBik4EbfwEbs5qRAfk6o0enz71xbXHl/ddt22EpInynibZq/fC/L1WpdFMh586
ru2/yLgbpdfvs6URJYC2Q3LUlrsBiGAlFRM+NOVr139ZAzsPg/sGlJwu4v4j9937
ldq/0lv23ZMXZe8nHmaqoKc0C0V/ZUA4xmzX8rRDEXPQ3clqCblW4gDn9Ct1KSdB
fpVkguraxnaGOUItJUQ02IoMReiBiMl05j4JCfhyPiSolQ8lVnOvB1uXIO4zX95w
GUt0VMRQjvVEZeIldU2cuxKvVZ6rs8zFmN+/1wtZnYiFC7eSz9wCwdhqJwHWvu4=
=aB+m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:16 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Saturday 21 July 2012 22:58:03 Lisi wrote:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the above
view should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because
that is quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users
etc., (all splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The most interesting thing about this is that it has very little to do with
Linux or Trinity, or any of the other packages mentioned and says much more
about how people perceive reality, at least in the field of computing.
The concept of Linux being 'damaged', in the sense of those people claiming it
to be so, _only_ makes sense in the context of a competition where Linux is
competing with alternative options; this is where many people have ended up
with a completely incorrect view of what Linux is and even why it exists at
all.
Whilst there are a number of commercial companies, such as Red Hat, Suse,
Canonical etc. who have made businesses out of Linux, and who do need to
compete for market share to maximise their revenue, none of them can claim
ownership of Linux. Indeed, we need to get the horse clearly in front of the
cart here: Linux pre-dated all of the commercial organisations that have been
founded upon it.
The reality of the situation is that what we refer to as 'Linux' was created
from a collection of components, just one of which being the 'Linux' kernel,
that were originally produced as alternatives to existing solutions, the
important distinction being that these were alternatives and not competitors.
None of the originators of the components that were eventually pulled
together and combined to create 'Linux' did so on the basis of competing with
and supplanting the existing solutions but for a range of other reasons,
ranging from dissatisfaction with those existing solutions, to wanting to
learn how something worked, out of idle curiosity.
Once they'd done their work they simply offered it up for people to use, or
not, as they chose, having no vested interest, other than personal pride
perhaps, if their solution came to be preferred over the existing solutions.
So although business organisations that are founded upon Linux may compete,
not just with each other but also with other non-Linux based solutions, for
market share, it is those businesses that are competing, not Linux. Those
businesses are not Linux and Linux is not those businesses; Linux is not
owned by anyone, it just 'is', take-it-or-leave-it, and as such is
fundamentally non-competitive.
It is here where those people who think that Linux is being damaged have gone
wrong; they see a competition where no competition exists, because they see
no further than the businesses based upon it; the real nature of open-source,
that of the freedom to take-it-or-leave-it, has entirely eluded them.
LeeE
28 Jul
28 Jul
3:30 p.m.
New subject: Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Well, I've been telling for years now that we were better off with one desktop
that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if desired, be all the visual
monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and systray, be a
full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
Make it configurable from simply to rocket science, from 486 to i7 but have
ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
The goal of side projects or underdogs like Trinity or others should be an
inspiration to the bigheads, but instead they push their own ideas for the
sake of making a name. When I started linux ages ago I was told the power of
open src was that you do not have to reinvent the wheel over and over again
as you can take code from other projects and start on that.
Desktop Environment developers reinvent the wheel over and over again.
My favorite picture viewer is GThumb. It's GTK so it looks a wee bit different
from qt/kde no matter how much I adapt themes and engines.
It's gui bahviour is gtk and I can't do much about it.
I do *not* have a choice if I want to stick with that program. (Unless I port
it to qt myself. Some choice.)
By now the KDE people should have grasped there is a reason there is Trinity,
there is a reason SuSE has official KDE3 packages again, there is a reason
Gentoo users maintain a KDE3 branch.
KDE4 has tried to overthrow a GUI paradigma that has come to its final form
ages ago and has been like all the WinXP clones for a reason: it's good to
work with.
What we don't need is NOT a more powerful desktop, what we need are more
powerful *programs*.
If I am looking for an old email I use filter fields and whatnot and fancy
keyboard shortcuts. The keyboard itself should be replaces with something
dynamic that offers intelligent macro tasks. Computers as we know them have
gone from 1MHz 8bit with 640k RAM to multicore teraflop 8GB+ powerhouses and
STILL we need to feed them in mostly the same way we did in the 90s.
Where's my Star Trek?
It's partially in my smartphone, actually. I can actually *tell* the nav soft
where I want to go and it recognises that surprisingly well.
But there is no semantic interface, there is no brain power.
I cannot tell it to bypass this and that path, when I do that I have a
limitied set of buttons I have to press (and all the Star Trek air vanishes
instantaneously), where *I* have to do the task's abstraction again. It
doesn' t do that for me, I cannot have it ponder options and relate data to
the situation.
Everything is broken down to running this algo faster and having a new button
there.
What we need is not a better desktop, that's like saying we need a better
hammer.
There is nothing to improve about hammers. The one I get in a hardware shop
has been perfected to its purpose. To say it should have a video camera and a
light so I can better aim at the nail is not how we think. If we need better
aiming at the nail we need glasses and a head mounted lamp.
And there we are again at Desktop Environments: the gnome people develop their
index system, the kde people develop theirs. Neither made anyone write home
about it.
There's the cloud idea, think "Siri". Then again there's trust issues
while
the hive mind intelligence *does* lie in the hive, not in the node.
(I don't trust Apple the slightest bit.)
It's time to start making an open source cloud that allows specialised task
bots to have some degree of autonomy granted plus the capability to interact.
Think | .
Leave the desktops alone. All we need to organize our programs is a taskbar,
launchers and a systray. If at all.
Am Saturday 21 July 2012 23:58:03 schrieb Lisi:
I was at a local LUG meeting today and was very
distressed that the above
view should be expressed, and forcefully. I found it distressing because
that is quite some allegation - that we and Mate users and Cinnamon users
etc., (all splinter groups) are actually damaging Linux, doing it harm.
The fact that we are free to digress and disagree is why I like open source
so much. Take away that freedom and we might as well all use Windows. It
seemed to me a quite extraordinary allegation. And as I say, I found it
personally upsetting.
Since Linux without its freedom would not be Linux, nothing would seem to
me more terminally harmful to Linux than to destroy that freedom.
I am a congenital maverick. I claim the right to remain a maverick and to
swim against the tide as much as I like!
Lisi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list
messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
3:50 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek?
120728 Dexter Filmore wrote a lot of stuff, but esp:
All we need to organize our programs is a taskbar,
launchers & a systray.
All I use is a Fluxbox menu, which I edit myself to include what I use
& arrange items under sensible submenus, & the delightful Apwal,
which shows an array of icons on the desktop when I right-click there,
which I configure to taste & which quickly starts LibreOffice, Krusader etc.
The Fluxbox menu is called up by left-click on the desktop or Alt-space,
which I can employ anywhere on any desktop. The same on my netbook.
So I agree, tho' others may prefer to vary the details.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
4:15 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek?
On Saturday 28 July 2012 16:50:05 Philip Webb wrote:
120728 Dexter Filmore wrote a lot of stuff, but esp:
> All we need to organize our programs is a taskbar, launchers & a systray.
All _you_ - and apparently Philip - need is a taskbar, launchers & a systray.
You are free to have them. They exist. But why should you - or anyone
else - be able to dictate to me what I need or want?
All I use is a Fluxbox menu, which I edit myself to
include what I use
& arrange items under sensible submenus, & the delightful Apwal,
which shows an array of icons on the desktop when I right-click there,
which I configure to taste & which quickly starts LibreOffice, Krusader
etc. The Fluxbox menu is called up by left-click on the desktop or
Alt-space, which I can employ anywhere on any desktop. The same on my
netbook.
Great. You have found something that you like, and you are free to use it.
But why should everyone else use it just because you want to do so?
So I agree, tho' others may prefer to vary the
details.
I disagree, and would vary more than the details.
You both have the freedom and the right to use whatever you choose and
whatever you feel happy with.
You do not have the right to dictate what the rest of us should use!
Lisi
31 Jul
31 Jul
1:17 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek?
Am Saturday 28 July 2012 18:15:54 schrieb Lisi:
On Saturday 28 July 2012 16:50:05 Philip Webb wrote:
Either you did not read the portion about my idea to have a desktop that's
flexible enough to suit all tastes or choose to ignore it.
120728 Dexter Filmore wrote a lot of stuff, but
esp:
> All we need to organize our programs is a taskbar, launchers & a
> systray.
All _you_ - and apparently Philip - need is a taskbar, launchers & a
systray. You are free to have them. They exist. But why should you - or
anyone else - be able to dictate to me what I need or want?
1:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek?
On 31 July 2012 09:17, Dexter Filmore <Dexter.Filmore(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Am Saturday 28 July 2012 18:15:54 schrieb Lisi:
Dexter,
Having any sort of configuration will just pile up and pile up. You
still need to stick to a basic paradigm, like the classic desktop
metaphor or a mobile interface. It's fine to have customizations, but
it is best to be able to have a solid core. Without a clear focus like
TDE has, it's easy to get lost. The are many different use cases and
using a single product for all would result in an a giant bloated
piece of software, without it being remarkable. By having one focus,
we can continue to perfect and improve that, and put our resources to
that end, instead of satisfying everybody - which is inevitably
impossible.
Calvin
On Saturday 28 July 2012 16:50:05 Philip Webb
wrote:
Either you did not read the portion about my idea to have a desktop that's
flexible enough to suit all tastes or choose to ignore it. 120728 Dexter Filmore wrote a lot of stuff, but
esp:
> All we need to organize our programs is a taskbar, launchers & a
> systray.
All _you_ - and apparently Philip - need is a taskbar, launchers & a
systray. You are free to have them. They exist. But why should you - or
anyone else - be able to dictate to me what I need or want?
1 Aug
1 Aug
12:33 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek?
On July 31, 2012 7:38:35 am Calvin Morrison wrote:
Having any sort of configuration will just pile up and
pile up. You
still need to stick to a basic paradigm, like the classic desktop
metaphor or a mobile interface. It's fine to have customizations, but
it is best to be able to have a solid core. Without a clear focus like
TDE has, it's easy to get lost. The are many different use cases and
using a single product for all would result in an a giant bloated
piece of software, without it being remarkable. By having one focus,
we can continue to perfect and improve that, and put our resources to
that end, instead of satisfying everybody - which is inevitably
impossible.
Hi,
What if you are clearly focused on providing the solid core of a single
product for all... a project like that is not doomed to failure (e.g., I can
install Debian on desktops, servers, and embedded devices), it is simply a
matter of providing infrastructure which allows for the option of leaving out
or including bits appropriate for the task.
As long as TDE doesn't arbitrarily close the door on any of the options it
could potentially cater to as many tastes as there are competent cooks. It
may well be that providing the polish/infrastructure needed to simply (from
the user's pov) accommodate all kinds of weird (from the general pov) uses is
a desirable, or at least reasonable, way forward... after all, by some pov,
TDE is a niche product, maybe it should cater to niche markets.
- Bruce
28 Jul
28 Jul
3:54 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Jul 28, 2012 8:30 AM, "Dexter Filmore" <Dexter.Filmore(a)gmx.de> wrote:
What we don't need is NOT a more powerful desktop,
what we need are more
powerful *programs*.
One thing I've wondered about users of desktops like TDE, is how many
people use the standard set of apps. I notice a lot of TDE development
seems to go toward the K* programs which I don't use (IM, email, editor,
etc), or use in a limited fashion (konqueror, for files), or I use the KDE4
version of (k3b, ktorrent).
Since I started off in Gnome rather than KDE 3.5, I got used to a lot of
those Gnome programs so have some from that, found some others when I
needed something, picked some up from LXDE, etc etc.. my system is a
frankenstein of the various UI libraries. I pretty much only use the
essentials of TDE, any major programs are something else.
My guess is that most users started off in KDE so they got used to all the
K* choices, or have only swapped out a very few. It's probably only people
like me that migrated from something else that pick and choose.
Jeff
5:41 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Dexter Filmore wrote:
Well, I've been telling for years now that we were
better off with one desktop
that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
I can't imagine when it was that "we were better off with one desktop". Was
it
perhaps in the days of the Windows 95 desktop? Or the Apple Mac System 6 Finder?
Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if
desired, be all the visual
monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and systray, be a
full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
So what you are actually saying is that this one desktop should actually be...
a hundred different desktops, only all in one code base.
I'm guessing that you're not a programmer or an engineer, are you?
Configuration choices increase the complexity of a program exponentially. One
desktop capable of being all things to all people, as you suggest, would be a
thousand times more complicated than 100 desktops which each focus on one
small segment of the users. That means a thousand times bigger, a thousand
times more development time, and a thousand times more bugs.
Desktops of the complexity of KDE or Gnome are, in my opinion, already at the
edge of being too complex to be maintained successfully. With so many
combinations of configuration options, there is no possible way that every
combination has been fully tested and is bug free. The best we can hope for is
that the most commonly used combinations are bug free, and that any bugs are
buried in combinations that nobody uses.
Make it configurable from simply to rocket science,
from 486 to i7 but have
ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
While you're wishing, don't forget to ask for a flying pony that craps rainbows.
[...]
Desktop Environment developers reinvent the wheel over
and over again.
My favorite picture viewer is GThumb. It's GTK so it looks a wee bit different
from qt/kde no matter how much I adapt themes and engines.
It's gui bahviour is gtk and I can't do much about it.
I do *not* have a choice if I want to stick with that program. (Unless I port
it to qt myself. Some choice.)
But it *is* a choice, and the only reasonable choice. Why should the GThumb
programmer spend hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands of hours, trying to
adapt his program to every imaginable toolkit?
If *you* want to turn GThumb into a qt app, then *you* can do the work, or pay
somebody to do it for you.
[...]
What we don't need is NOT a more powerful desktop,
what we need are more
powerful *programs*.
The desktop is a program. Many programs. Are you saying that they *don't* need
to be more powerful? Who decides which programs are allowed to be more
powerful and which are not?
I think the KDE 4 developers made an incredible boneheaded mistake in the way
they abandoned KDE 3 and started a new project from scratch. I think that the
new functionality they created is mostly unnecessary and mostly unusable. (If
I thought the opposite, I would be using KDE 4.) But it was their right to
make that mistake, and who knows, next time they might actually get it right.
[...]
What we need is not a better desktop, that's like
saying we need a better
hammer.
There is nothing to improve about hammers. The one I get in a hardware shop
has been perfected to its purpose.
And which hammer would that be?
Tack hammer.
Ball-peen hammer.
Cross-peen hammer.
Sledgehammer.
Drilling hammer.
Bush hammer.
Claw hammer.
Framing hammer.
Geologist's hammer.
Lump or mash hammer.
Rubber mallet.
Copper or lead mallet.
Wooden mallet.
Dead blow hammer.
Soft-faced hammer.
Stonemason's hammer.
Tinner's hammer.
Dog-head hammer.
It never ceases to amuse me when people use the hammer as an analogy for why
we only need one tool for some purpose.
Leave the desktops alone. All we need to organize our
programs is a taskbar,
launchers and a systray. If at all.
Maybe that's all *you* need.
--
Steven
31 Jul
31 Jul
1:27 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Am Saturday 28 July 2012 19:41:28 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
See above.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Dexter Filmore wrote:
OSS people tend to brag how OSS is superior due to the massive number of
developers at the bazar. Yet the all are spread over a million projects.
Some form and become stronger, evolve, most don't. If I had a buck for every
interesting approach that never got beyond 0.0.5 I'd need a bag to carry
them.
Well, I've been telling for years now that we
were better off with one
desktop that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
I can't imagine when it was that "we were better off with one desktop".
Was
it perhaps in the days of the Windows 95 desktop? Or the Apple Mac System 6
Finder?
Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if
desired, be all the
visual monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and
systray, be a full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
So what you are actually saying is that this one desktop should actually
be... a hundred different desktops, only all in one code base.
I'm guessing that you're not a programmer or an engineer, are you?
Configuration choices increase the complexity of a program exponentially.
One desktop capable of being all things to all people, as you suggest,
would be a thousand times more complicated than 100 desktops which each
focus on one small segment of the users. That means a thousand times
bigger, a thousand times more development time, and a thousand times more
bugs.
Desktops of the complexity of KDE or Gnome are, in my
opinion, already at
the edge of being too complex to be maintained successfully. With so many
combinations of configuration options, there is no possible way that every
combination has been fully tested and is bug free. The best we can hope for
is that the most commonly used combinations are bug free, and that any bugs
are buried in combinations that nobody uses.
Yeah, one of my wiches being that people do not take every single fscking word
100% literally and think in the idea, not in absolutes. If you resign at
striving for an utopia you resign at "new ideas" already.
Make it configurable from simply to rocket
science, from 486 to i7 but
have ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
While you're wishing, don't forget to ask for a flying pony that craps
rainbows.
[...]
There goes the "free" train, as all the years before, been there.
Desktop Environment developers reinvent the wheel
over and over again.
My favorite picture viewer is GThumb. It's GTK so it looks a wee bit
different from qt/kde no matter how much I adapt themes and engines.
It's gui bahviour is gtk and I can't do much about it.
I do *not* have a choice if I want to stick with that program. (Unless I
port it to qt myself. Some choice.)
But it *is* a choice, and the only reasonable choice. Why should the GThumb
programmer spend hundreds of hours, perhaps thousands of hours, trying to
adapt his program to every imaginable toolkit?
If *you* want to turn GThumb into a qt app, then *you* can do the work, or
pay somebody to do it for you.
[...]
Don't know what you're on about here.
What we don't need is NOT a more powerful
desktop, what we need are more
powerful *programs*.
The desktop is a program. Many programs. Are you saying that they *don't*
need to be more powerful? Who decides which programs are allowed to be more
powerful and which are not?
I think the KDE 4 developers made an incredible boneheaded mistake in the
way they abandoned KDE 3 and started a new project from scratch. I think
that the new functionality they created is mostly unnecessary and mostly
unusable. (If I thought the opposite, I would be using KDE 4.) But it was
their right to make that mistake, and who knows, next time they might
actually get it right.
Yeah well next time we might all be dead.
[...]
It never ceases to puzzle me how people take analogies into real life and
expect the crowd to cheer about them being smug.
Have fun driving in nails with a bush hammer.
What we need is not a better desktop, that's
like saying we need a better
hammer.
There is nothing to improve about hammers. The one I get in a hardware
shop has been perfected to its purpose.
And which hammer would that be?
Tack hammer.
Ball-peen hammer.
Cross-peen hammer.
Sledgehammer.
Drilling hammer.
Bush hammer.
Claw hammer.
Framing hammer.
Geologist's hammer.
Lump or mash hammer.
Rubber mallet.
Copper or lead mallet.
Wooden mallet.
Dead blow hammer.
Soft-faced hammer.
Stonemason's hammer.
Tinner's hammer.
Dog-head hammer.
It never ceases to amuse me when people use the hammer as an analogy for
why we only need one tool for some purpose.
Leave the
desktops alone. All we need to organize our programs is a
taskbar, launchers and a systray. If at all.
Maybe that's all *you* need.
1:36 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Tuesday 31 July 2012 14:27:01 Dexter Filmore wrote:
If you resign at
striving for an utopia you resign at "new ideas" already.
And you think that what you describe, which sounds like an absolute nightmare,
is *Utopia*!!
6 Aug
6 Aug
5 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Well, at least you do not write "u" instead of "you".
Am Tuesday 31 July 2012 15:36:40 schrieb Lisi:
On Tuesday 31 July 2012 14:27:01 Dexter Filmore
wrote:
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
If you resign at
striving for an utopia you resign at "new ideas" already.
And you think that what you describe, which sounds like an absolute
nightmare, is *Utopia*!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list
messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
14 Aug
14 Aug
3:11 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Monday 06 August 2012 18:00:21 Dexter Filmore wrote:
Well, at least you do not write "u" instead
of "you".
What have I ever written that might lead you to suppose that I might do such a
thing? My typing is lousy so I make a lot of mistakes, but I *never* *ever*
use text-speak.
You seem to dislike anyone not agreeing 100% with you. Freedom in my book
includes being allowed to dislike intensely something someone else views as
desirable.
Lisi
31 Jul
31 Jul
11:08 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 08/01/2012 01:27 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
OSS people tend to brag how OSS is superior due to the
massive
number of developers at the bazar. Yet the all are spread over a
million projects. Some form and become stronger, evolve, most
don't. If I had a buck for every interesting approach that never
got beyond 0.0.5 I'd need a bag to carry them.
Is this a discussion over the most appropriate direction to take in
desktop interface design, or the merits of free software vs
proprietary development? Do you want a proprietary system?
Maybe people do brag about superior development characteristics in
free software. Maybe it does possess said advantages, maybe not. Maybe
it depends on the people involved. But that's beside the point. The
point of free software is that it gives you your freedom. If you don't
have that first and foremost, who gives a crap how "good" it seems?
Freedom isn't about price, and it isn't about making software "free."
Its about empowering people free and keeping people free.
11:20 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
<snip>
and keeping people free.
+1! This is really what FOSS is about--preventing entire portions of the
population from falling back into the pre-computer dark ages on the whims
of some politicians hundreds of miles away.
Tim
6 Aug
6 Aug
5:04 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Am Wednesday 01 August 2012 01:08:37 schrieb Bryan Baldwin:
On 08/01/2012 01:27 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Did I say that?
OSS people tend to brag how OSS is superior due
to the massive
number of developers at the bazar. Yet the all are spread over a
million projects. Some form and become stronger, evolve, most
don't. If I had a buck for every interesting approach that never
got beyond 0.0.5 I'd need a bag to carry them.
Is this a discussion over the most appropriate direction to take in
desktop interface design, or the merits of free software vs
proprietary development? Do you want a proprietary system? Maybe people do brag about superior development
characteristics in
free software. Maybe it does possess said advantages, maybe not. Maybe
it depends on the people involved. But that's beside the point. The
point of free software is that it gives you your freedom. If you don't
have that first and foremost, who gives a crap how "good" it seems?
Do you mean by this you prefer poor free software over proper proprietary?
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
7 Aug
7 Aug
2:26 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/07/2012 05:04 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Do you mean by this you prefer poor free software over
proper
proprietary?
By this I mean retaining freedom over relinquishing it in exchange for
the technological equivalent of rifles and blankets.
This is a variation of the old and tired bit of husksterism, which
goes, "If you object to nonfree X, then you would have gotten rid of
nonfree Y." Which is rubbish.
Technological freedom movements are not about auditing the contents of
peoples closets. People who care about freedom might tell you why
nonfree is bad for you, but its not about telling users what to do.
Its about examining the things developers are distributing to users,
criticizing the nonfree things, and promoting and developing
alternatives that support freedom.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQIHy9AAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIuVIH/0NXlOyxRTR6eT41BOQM8XkS
wn/UI8G7Kt7NS/s9Z3W+KIICIVeYyQpmxMpCnhRKNUsaGWgfwygoQ8BmSvv9Oues
qroQoXCN9tBgjH86cxt2v7Ujjv8F+PQuU+SH47tMqM585f0H1KUzR8U2AArgYcNS
V4DVA93yajQWuqgJDIPAeQB91w6o3safHxpZ7hvEOucFfVSaS7WAGtHLFk65nQ9I
s10Gdl5RKAq+laI5i/qWqgABXpjK7Cf7cUHpDk84mmb3HN4pbWvL/eyCO/aPJAOd
7jBi3s9jouvXy5LlGGeFHALMAoEyfgPRPdoMHMqPHIS5KiwoSFfuXB2KFsl/fS8=
=Xlx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12 Aug
12 Aug
12:34 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Am Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:26:05 schrieb Bryan Baldwin:
On 08/07/2012 05:04 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
The metaphor eludes my grasp, sorry.
Do you mean by this you prefer poor free software
over proper
proprietary?
By this I mean retaining freedom over relinquishing it in exchange for
the technological equivalent of rifles and blankets.
This is a variation of the old and tired bit of husksterism, which
My standard translation sources do not even list that word or similar ones.
goes, "If you object to nonfree X, then you would
have gotten rid of
nonfree Y." Which is rubbish.
Yes, quite obviously. Yet again I did not see anybody make such a claim.
Quite frankly, I do not see your point or an answer to my question or where
this is leading.
Technological freedom movements are not about auditing
the contents of
peoples closets.
Claim never made either. You keep pointing out things that are wildly
outlandish and nobody had a point for or against or even loosely connected
to.
What is this?
People who care about freedom might tell you why
nonfree is bad for you, but its not about telling users what to do.
Its about examining the things developers are distributing to users,
Examining as an assessment instance?
criticizing the nonfree things, and promoting and
developing
alternatives that support freedom.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d--(+)@ s-:+ a C++++ UL++ P+>++ L+++>++++ E-- W++ N o? K-
w--(---) !O M+ V- PS+ PE Y++ PGP t++(---)@ 5 X+(++) R+(++) tv--(+)@
b++(+++) DI+++ D- G++ e* h>++ r* y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
1:54 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 12/08/12 22:34, Dexter Filmore wrote:
I'm not sure what Bryan means either. I think he may have conflated a couple
of different words:
"husker" -- one who husks corn (removes the outer husk to get to the kernels)
"hustler" -- one who hustlers, a shrewd and unscrupulous person who knows
how to get around difficulties, usually implying that they are a confidence
trickster ("con artist")
The "-ism" suffix creates a noun, in this case, the state of being a
"huskster", whatever that is supposed to be. Hustler?
--
Steven
Am Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:26:05 schrieb Bryan
Baldwin:
I believe that Bryan is making a reference to the practice in the "Wild West"
of the USA in the 1800s, when white European settlers would trade rifles and
blankets to native American Indians.
Of course the rifles would soon run out of bullets and become useless, and
the blankets were often deliberately infected with smallpox.
Bryan is implying that non-free software is a trap: if not directly harmful
like smallpox-infected blankets, it makes us dependent bullet factories that
we do not control.
On 08/07/2012 05:04 AM, Dexter Filmore wrote:
The metaphor eludes my grasp, sorry. Do you mean by this you prefer poor free software
over proper
proprietary?
By this I mean retaining freedom over relinquishing it in exchange for
the technological equivalent of rifles and blankets. This is a
variation of the old and tired bit of husksterism, which
My standard translation sources do not even list that word or similar ones. 
2:08 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
This is a variation of the old and tired bit of
husksterism, which
My standard translation sources do not even list that word or similar
ones.
14 Aug
14 Aug
3:21 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Sunday 12 August 2012 15:08:19 Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
I'm not sure what Bryan means either. I think he may have conflated a
couple of different words:
huskerism (EN) = "Hausierei" (DE)
Describes the activity of an unwated door-to-door salesman.
Nik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional
commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list
messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
I think that he probably maent "hucksterism", which certainly exists. I
confess to not having come across the form "huskerism".
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/huckster
Lisi
This is a
variation of the old and tired bit of husksterism, which
My standard translation sources do not even list that word or similar
ones. 
12 Aug
12 Aug
8:26 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)pearwood.info>wrote;wrote:
This is a variation of the old and tired bit of husksterism, which
My standard translation sources do not even list that word or similar
ones.
I'm not sure what Bryan means either. I think he may have conflated a
couple
of different words:
"husker" -- one who husks corn (removes the outer husk to get to the
kernels)
"hustler" -- one who hustlers, a shrewd and unscrupulous person who knows
how to get around difficulties, usually implying that they are a confidence
trickster ("con artist")
The "-ism" suffix creates a noun, in this case, the state of being a
"huskster", whatever that is supposed to be. Hustler?
I couldn't post to the list so I sent the OP an email which I hope he will
forgive me for; won't happen again.
the word I think you are all looking for is 'hucksterism'.
Felmon
10:16 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 08/13/2012 08:26 AM, felmon davis wrote:
the word I think you are all looking for is
'hucksterism'.
Quite right, which is to say that I think its useless to go looking for
mud puddles in the backyards of those who are worried that the dam is
going to burst.
29 Jul
29 Jul
4:03 a.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Dexter Filmore <Dexter.Filmore(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Well, I've been telling for years now that we were
better off with one desktop
that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if desired, be all the visual
monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and systray, be a
full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
Make it configurable from simply to rocket science, from 486 to i7 but have
ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
Dexter,
This is the thing that the competitors (e.g. Mac, Windows) have done,
or at least tried to do. I have my own workflow, and am not going to
change it just because someone thinks I should. For Mac and Windows,
they are telling me that I have to do task X in this way and that is
the only way I can do it. If I decide to color outside the lines, then
that is not allowed.
I think that's why many of us have gravitated to Linux. Because of the
freedom to compute in a way that is comfortable for us. Gnome and KDE
have completely different paradigms for how they operate, and I think
that trying to force them into a single box is wrong of you.
Not to put too fine a point on it, find a way to compute that works
for you and go with it. But don't try to dictate to everyone else that
they have to compute in the same way. And don't try to tell the
developers, who are doing this in their free time as a labor of love
that they are doing it wrong. If the "there is only one way to do it"
paradigm is what fits you, go back to Windows or Mac.
I've heard similar debates about how there are too many distros. That
we should force all of the distro devs to work on one big unified
distro. So which would it be? RedHat? They are king in the corporate
space. Debian? They have a couple of hundred distros in their progeny.
What about all the specialist distros like Backtrack for
security/pentesting? Or should we stop OpenMediaVault? What about DBAN
or Parted Magic or system rescue cd? And who would make this
decision? I tend to run Debian on the desktop, but have about a dozen
specialist distros on cd or thumb drive.
So, variety being the spice of life, and since you cannot dictate what
we do with our free time, if we want to contribute to one or more
projects, then I think the best you can do is just say thank you.
Just my $0.02,
--b
31 Jul
31 Jul
1:37 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Am Sunday 29 July 2012 06:03:41 schrieb Brad Alexander:
Win/OSX = binary, Cathedral style. Does not make a good base for comparison
imo.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Dexter Filmore
<Dexter.Filmore(a)gmx.de>
wrote:
Well, I've
been telling for years now that we were better off with one
desktop that has the flexibility to adapt to everyone's needs.
Be lightweight without graphical mumbo jumbo if desired, be all the
visual monster with tons of effects, be as simple as a task bar and
systray, be a full blown cornucopia of gadgets if somebody prefer that.
Make it configurable from simply to rocket science, from 486 to i7 but
have ONE API. Offer developers a safe base.
Dexter,
This is the thing that the competitors (e.g. Mac, Windows) have done,
or at least tried to do. I have my own workflow, and am not going to
change it just because someone thinks I should. For Mac and Windows,
they are telling me that I have to do task X in this way and that is
the only way I can do it. If I decide to color outside the lines, then
that is not allowed.
I think that's why many of us have gravitated to Linux. Because of the
freedom to compute in a way that is comfortable for us. Gnome and KDE
have completely different paradigms for how they operate, and I think
that trying to force them into a single box is wrong of you.
If the box is big enough for both?
Not to put too fine a point on it, find a way to
compute that works
for you and go with it. But don't try to dictate to everyone else that
they have to compute in the same way. And don't try to tell the
developers, who are doing this in their free time as a labor of love
that they are doing it wrong.
I don't. I say there should be a standard. And from a certain level on there
isn't.
We agreed on how to address mem, how to address hdd sectors, we agreed on byte
order (mostly, this is where the exceptions start but at least all cases are
covered).
And I've been in the OSS game since last century now and have my part in
growing the community, if I don't get to complain I don't see why I should
contribute.
If the "there is only one way to do it"
paradigm is what fits you, go back to Windows or Mac.
MS/Apple don't listen to me at all. There is no dialog. I don't say I the OSS
community is not for me, I say there are more possibilities and there could
be more archievement than there is.
I've heard similar debates about how there are too many distros. That
we should force all of the distro devs to work on one big unified
distro. So which would it be? RedHat? They are king in the corporate
space. Debian? They have a couple of hundred distros in their progeny.
What about all the specialist distros like Backtrack for
security/pentesting? Or should we stop OpenMediaVault? What about DBAN
or Parted Magic or system rescue cd? And who would make this
decision? I tend to run Debian on the desktop, but have about a dozen
specialist distros on cd or thumb drive.
I never said anything about distros. While I see that BSD has a different
standard, just mentioning as you bring it up.
So, variety being the spice of life, and since you
cannot dictate what
we do with our free time, if we want to contribute to one or more
projects, then I think the best you can do is just say thank you.
Since others gave me the "dictate" thing I assume I conveyed my intention
wrong somewhere.
I wanted to weigh an idea, I'm not telling anyone what to do with their time.
Unless I payed, of course...
30 Jul
30 Jul
7:41 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 07/28/12 10:30, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Where's my Star Trek?
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install startrek
[sudo] password for plaws:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package startrek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "star trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package star trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "tobias trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package tobias trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package trek
No idea, dude. Sorry.
--
Peter Laws / N5UWY
National Weather Center / Network Operations Center
University of Oklahoma Information Technology
plaws(a)ou.edu
College of Architecture, Regional and City Planning, MRCP '16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback? Contact my director, Matt Younkins, younkinsm(a)ou.edu. Thank you!
7:51 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
On 07/28/12 10:30, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Nah, it's more like this:
apt-get install lcars
Error: technology unavailable; not invented or non-free (patented)
Wait 20yrs? [Y/n]
;-)
Tim
Where's my Star Trek?
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install startrek
[sudo] password for plaws:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package startrek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "star trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package star trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "tobias trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package tobias trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package trek
No idea, dude. Sorry. 
8:34 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? was Re: [trinity-users] [sort of OT] Trinity etc. are damaging Linux
Timothy Pearson wrote:
$ aptitude show bsdgames
Package: bsdgames
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 2.17-19
Priority: optional
Section: games
Maintainer: Tobias Quathamer <toddy(a)debian.org>
Uncompressed Size: 2,449 k
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.7), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libncurses5 (>=
5.6+20071006-3), libstdc++6 (>= 4.4.0), wamerican | wordlist
Conflicts: bsdgames-nonfree (< 2.14)
Replaces: bsdgames-nonfree (< 2.14)
Description: collection of classic textual unix games
This is a collection of some of the text-based games and amusements
that have been enjoyed for decades on unix systems.
It includes these programs: adventure, arithmetic, atc, backgammon,
battlestar, bcd, boggle, caesar, canfield, countmail,
cribbage, dab, go-fish, gomoku, hack, hangman, hunt, mille, monop,
morse, number, pig, phantasia, pom, ppt, primes, quiz,
random, rain, robots, rot13, sail, snake, tetris, *trek*, wargames,
worm, worms, wump, wtf
There's your Star Trek! :)
On 07/28/12
10:30, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Nah, it's more like this:
apt-get install lcars
Error: technology unavailable; not invented or non-free (patented)
Wait 20yrs? [Y/n]
;-)
Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Where's my Star Trek?
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install startrek
[sudo] password for plaws:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package startrek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "star trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package star trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "tobias trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package tobias trek
plaws@toto:plaws $ sudo apt-get install "trek"
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package trek
No idea, dude. Sorry.
31 Jul
31 Jul
1:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? - LCARS
No idea, dude. Sorry.
Nah, it's more like this:
apt-get install lcars
Error: technology unavailable; not invented or non-free (patented)
Wait 20yrs? [Y/n]
;-)
Tim
1:46 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? - LCARS
On 07/31/12 08:38, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Nah, a friend of mine did an LCARS interface, turned out LCARS is not half as
cool as they make it look :)
Well, no, not without the touchscreen. And the starship.
--
Peter Laws / N5UWY
National Weather Center / Network Operations Center
University of Oklahoma Information Technology
plaws(a)ou.edu
College of Architecture, Regional and City Planning, MRCP '16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feedback? Contact my director, Matt Younkins, younkinsm(a)ou.edu. Thank you!
No idea, dude. Sorry.
Nah, it's more like this:
apt-get install lcars
Error: technology unavailable; not invented or non-free (patented)
Wait 20yrs? [Y/n]
;-)
Tim
2:55 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-users] Where is my Star Trek? - LCARS
On 07/31/12 08:38, Dexter Filmore wrote:
Nah, a friend of mine did an LCARS interface, turned out LCARS is not
half as
cool as they make it look :)
Well, no, not without the touchscreen. And the starship.
So basically, outside of (or without) the intended application the
interface is of little use. Not surprising. :-)
Tim
No idea, dude. Sorry.
Nah, it's more like this:
apt-get install lcars
Error: technology unavailable; not invented or non-free (patented)
Wait 20yrs? [Y/n]
;-)
Tim
4271
days inactive
4295
days old
58 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
<=K -
Brad Alexander -
Bruce Sass -
Bryan Baldwin -
Calvin Morrison -
Dexter Filmore -
E. Liddell -
felmon davis -
Jeffry Johnston -
leee -
Lisi -
Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Marvin L Jones -
Old Laptop -
Peter Laws -
Philip Webb -
Steven D'Aprano -
Timothy Pearson