Distro help. Please?

[Aloone_Jonez]

I really hate it when people decide "who gives a crap about the licence, the product is far superior".

Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.

No wonder the world is in such a state.

[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

But sometimes they don't have much choice.

I wonder why.

We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.

Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.

So the setup is BIOS. How was I suppost to know? What the hell is BIOS anyway?
F2 and F11 work. My problem is that it wont boot from the disc so I can install it. It's not a live CD or anything. I have played around with the boot order so that it will boot soley from CD and it recongnizes the prescence of a CD but cannot boot from it. I might have to play around with the setup a bit.
Also Ubuntu was suppost to be an .iso image, which it wasn't. Unless you can veiw .iso images without a CD. As folders and various other things.
There isn't any other way to install Ubuntu other than booting from disc is there?

Can you actually execute the set up program?

How about other distros?

Does knoppix, or live Ubuntu work?

[Orethrius]

Wow.  Just... WOW.  I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.

Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.

No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.

[sarcasm]Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.[/sarcasm]

As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.

We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.

Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.

Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have the "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to keep their source code secret.

Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.

Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?

[piratePenguin]

I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source"

In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!

Oh so people are starving because some software developer won't let me view the source code for their software.

I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).

Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.

We do in this case, either use some shit open source software or a superiour alternative that suits our needs that doesn't cost anything more anyway.

That's hardley much of a choice, is it?

Give up

Mmmm letmethinkletmethink












Nah .

[Aloone_Jonez]

Wow.  Just... WOW.  I've neer seen ANYONE go so far to reinforce such an outmoded concept as propietary software.

I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.

Companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.

No wonder people think you're full of yourself. You'd rather support the pay alternative than put some actual EFFORT into improving the FOSS software? Then you're going to call the community that DEVELOPED YOUR COMPUTER a bunch of BIGOTS? Check out the Win2K source some time, and tell me how much of that ISN'T BSD. Go on, we'll wait. Done yet? Good. The next time you want to criticise the open-source community, you might give it the credit that its due. Without us, you'd still be stuck on CP/M - assuming they even had an R&D lab at the time. Blindly criticising a movement as a bunch of bigots without knowing - or caring about - their agenda is like attending a Klan rally to be more political. We'll start respecting that opinion about the time you figure out how you got to it.

Blah blah blah, I don't give a fuck, who said about paying for anything here?

The fact that you have access to the source is immaterial in this case both pieces of software cost fuck all, the only differance is one is better than the other and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.

The thing that pisses me off about the GNU crew is their belief that eveyone should have the right to have access to the source for all of the programs they use. I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.

As a matter of fact, the odds in favor are higher than the odds against that possibility. How many people don't have jobs fixing the numerous bugs in Internet Explorer, Word, Flight Simulator, and so on because Microsoft won't let anyone but a handful of NDA-bound individuals even REVIEW the source, let alone MODIFY it? How do YOU know who would and would not have a job given these circumstances? Save your sarcasm for a time when it's warranted. Better yet, since you can't seem to apply it judiciously, don't use it at all.

Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.

Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?

What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?

If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.

Bear in mind that you only use the "superior alternative" because you lack the knowledge to fix the Open Source Software, and the foresight to learn how. Basic coding knowledge will serve you well once your computer starts running your life in a few decades - or do you intend to let Microsoft tell you when to get up, how (little) much to eat, what shows you can watch, and how many times you can piss in a twelve hour period? I have an ethical question for you: would you rather die of old age, in a non-predetermined manner (silently, in your sleep; awake, of a heart attack; in a car, resulting in a massive fireball, wiping out a nearby Mercedes dealership), or commit suicide - say by cyanide pill - and not have to deal with the pain? Which is the "superior alternative"? You see, "superiority" is NEVER a good reason to do ANYTHING. It is relative, at best; repressive, at worst.

I don't care, all I care is that the software I use does what I want, I'm no programmer I just want the shit to work out of the box. I'd rather download some decent proprietary software rather than having to make good some shitty open source crap.

EDIT: Forgot to respond to this.

Give up, it's the whole idea that the users have no "basic human right" to have access to the source code for all the programs they use is bullshit because the developers have just as much right to make their source code public.

I agree with you on this, I have never disputed this, of course the developers have an equal right to make their source code public but they have an equal right to choose to make thie code public as they do to keep it private.

Would you be pissed off if your car suddenly stopped working, and you had no recourse to fix it, because you open the hood and see a small black box that indicates "generic engine fault - see mechanic" instead of a broken fan belt, or would you lie down and take it like a lame horse?

No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.

In that case, GET HELP!
Some people like to support other people who give them more freedom (and I mean actual freedom) than those who don't. FFS it'd probably be less of an inconvenience for non-free developers to use free-software licence. They're putting effort into taking away your freedom. WELL FUCK YOU NON-FREE DEVELOPER!

Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.

I guess you could say that, but I was actually thinking of the software-world (and many other like-worlds I guess).

Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.

Do yourself a favor and read some of the licences (I'd almost be willing to bet that you've never done so before.) that you openly accept and might as well be supporting.

In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE. :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:

That's hardley much of a choice, is it?
Mmmm letmethinkletmethink

hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.

Nah .

I'd rather use software that does what I want in the first place.

*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*

[Pathos]

OI start another thread, stop spamming this one.

[Dark_Me]

Can you actually execute the set up program?

Can't get it to boot at all. It tries to boot but says it can't (no boot record on CD) then just goes on to boot Windows.

Does knoppix, or live Ubuntu work?

Havn't tried Knoppix or the live CD.

How about other distros?

I havn't tried any other distos yet. Well, since Ubuntu is being a prefect waste of time and effort I might just trundle off and get another disto.
EDIT: I think i'll try the live CD first as that should have a boot record on it.

[Pathos]

Try Damn Small linux, its pretty cool.

[Aloone_Jonez]

OI start another thread, stop spamming this one.

This debate always hijacks threads, perhapps you're right, perhapps we should stop wasting our time as we'll never agree with each other.

Can't get it to boot at all. It tries to boot but says it can't (no boot record on CD) then just goes on to boot Windows.

It sounds like you're having problems burning the CD correctly. I don't think it's ubuntu's fault in this case , I could be wrong so try another distro lie Knoppix, failing that try ordering a CD.

[Dark_Me]

I've just been using Nero Express and burning all the files to disc. I was assuming that I didn't need any alterations.
Order the CD? Well it's totally free but I can't be bothered waiting 4-6 weeks for it. I'm downloading Damn Small Linux now. It's a nice idea, running an OS off a flash stick.
And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I've just been using Nero Express and burning all the files to disc. I was assuming that I didn't need any alterations.
Order the CD? Well it's totally free but I can't be bothered waiting 4-6 weeks for it. I'm downloading Damn Small Linux now. It's a nice idea, running an OS off a flash stick.

Go for it, at least darn small Linux in't a large download, and if you don't want to keep wasting CDs then you should get yourself some rewritable ones.

And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.

This has been my point all along, I couldn't agree more, you're getting an approve for that. :thumbup:

[Dark_Me]

Yay! My reps back in the green!

And on the licencing/closed source issue it depends on how it's used. Take MS for example. They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market. However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work. Hackers gotta eat.

That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.
You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.
I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Yay! My reps back in the green!

I don't know why it was ever out of the green, as in my oppinion you've haven't made a post worthy of any negitive reputation yet.

That didn't take too much thought. It's the whole duality of "good"/"evil" thing. Everything can be used for "good" or "evil". Take say, a sword, it can be used for defending ones home and family or for attacking antothers home and family.

The same with guns I suppose but there again you would not have to use the sword or gun if your home and familly weren't under threat by evil. Cars are a good example they make our lives easier but if used irresponsibly they kill people.

You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.

That's a very interesting point.

I wonder, has anyone ever hijacked their own thread before?

This debate always takes over when some open source software is compared with similar closed source software and it often drags on for a few pages until we get bored of it and give up.

[Dark_Me]

The problem is not the argument or the people making it but that your trying to find moral absolutes. This particular issue is nether "good" nor "evil". It is ether both "good" and "evil" or nether.
The world is nether black nor white nor even grey but all the colours of the rainbow.  And we have noone tell us what the colours are. - Me

[piratePenguin]

mostYou don't have to be a programmer to support free software.
The non-free developers work hard to take away your freedom. Why shouldn't that be enough to not-support them and support the alternatives that give you all the freedom you could ask for?
If a free ext2 driver only has read support and no write, then that's not even an accidental restriction on your "freedom". Maybe a bit of support is all they need? You could always ask/pay them/someone to get write-support working.

Depends on your view, I hate it when people say "it might be superiour but I won't use it because they won't let me view the source" no wonder people think the GNU fan club are a load of stuck up biggots.

Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?

I'm neither for it nor against it but in some cases I've seen it produce better quality software so for this reason alone I think it should stay. Open source is good and I'm definitely for it but I don't believe it produces better quality software and under certain circumstances I believe the reverse is true but I accept that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to prove either way.

Funny, I thought you believed that the licence had nothing to do with the quality of the product?

http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103899&postcount=89[/url])] thought I'd already established this, the licence doesn't determine the quality of software, the developers do.

Companies can't make money from free software purely on its originality and so they can only rely on the services they provide with it, hence there is no real competitive reason for them to innovate. For example why should a company bother to add a new feature to thier program when their competitor can simply use the code and make their product equal in quality so the consumer will have no reason to prefer their product over their competitor's? If their program was closed source then they would have a reason to do this since it's be a lot harder for thier competitor to make thier program equal.

What about the fs-driver developers, eh?

Also, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.

and having the source doesn't mean jack if you're not a programmer.

In a similar way that whether Jews are being thrown into concentration camps means jack shit to non-Jewish people? Alot of them didn't give a shit, but you shouldn't disrespect them who did (feel free to disrespect them who didn't, IMO).

I know it's not the same thing, and I didn't sugest that it is. My point is that something doesn't have to directly effect you in order for you to support it (and whether a program is free will directly effect you) or to refuse to support opponents to that something. If you think software should be free, that's enough, whether you are or aren't a programmer (I wouldn't call myself a programmer).

Why do you think "open source" is a good thing Aloone_Jonez? Are you a programmer?

I say bullshit if you create something then you have a choice as to whether you release the blueprints no one else

I never disagreed with that. I'm for users supporting free software and refusing to support non-free software (unless absolutely necessary. Non-free software is so rampant some people don't have much choice but to support it in one way or another.). If enough people did it, things would likely go their way. And the (software-)world would be a better place. Better software (due to people and companies collaborating more), and everyone's free and it'd be easier to break out of lock-ins (should they occur).

and no, you're not evil for choosing not too disclose your secrets.

Well IMO you are (e.g. if I asked some company could I have the code for their printer driver so I could improve it, and they said no. This happened RMS once (long time ago), he wasn't impressed.), and thus I won't support you unless I absolutely must (exclude software on PLAs or whatever crap. I never put it there, I was never asked what I wanted there).

Microsoft this, Microsoft that, Windows 2000, non of the aforementioned have been brought up here, we're talking about a program that lets you read ext under Windows for fuck sake.

So what? He had a damn good point against what you said.

Why the fuck should any company pay anyone to fix another company's product?

What motive would they possibly have for reparing Windows 2000?

Lots.
If they were running Windows (2000), then they can have their computers have less bugs or change it to be whatever they want it to be.

Why would any company bug fix any program they didn't write? Ask Red Hat.

If I were to employ someone to repair a bug in an open source program then that modification would also be open source so it'd give me no advantage over my competitors.

The bug would be fixed (you will benefit if you use the software. And so will every other user of that software), people might begin to respect you/your company. Just take a look at Xara!

Xara Sponsors XAR/SVG Converter Development
October 2, 2005

Xara announced last week that it is sponsoring Eric Wilhelm for $10,000 to develop a conversion utility based on Uber-Converter, a library for creating 2D vector format conversion tools. This tool will enable Xara users to interoperate with Inkscape and other SVG-based tools.

Suddenly, I know I love Xara far more (because they did a good thing).

[not-exactly-ontopic]

Xara Goes Open Source
October 14, 2005

Xara has announced that they are porting Xara Xtreme to Linux and will be releasing it as Open Source under the GPL! There is a prototype version available and an intriguing video for download.

It is not yet known when the source code will be made available; presumably a matter of weeks. Xara also expresses interest in working closely with Inkscape to find ways we can share code, coordinate efforts, and make Open Source graphics superior to anything available in the proprietary world.

Xara->Love *= 100;[/not-exactly-ontopic]

No, as this is already the case with lots of cars under 10 years old, lots of the parts are non-user serviceable, just you try to fix a car that has a bug in the ECU.

What if it was something that you knew you could fix pretty damn easilly?

Face it.
99.99% of people don't care.
99.99% of people don't give a fuck about the source.
99.99% of people just want software to work out of the box.
99.99% of people. . . Oh well I hope you get the point you're a minority.

In that case, .01% of people do care, and they've started a damn-huge movement, and I'll support them. Got a problem with that?

Please try to understand the concept that choosing not to share the source is no more evil than choosing not to share most of your money. Sharing money can do a fuck of a lot more than sharing code can. Sharing of the former can save people from starvation and buy them computers while sharing of the latter is only any good when they're already well off enough to buy computer.

If you start a movement of (rich aswell as just about confertable) people giving the majority of their money to charity, I'll support you too.

In this case the only thing restrictive about the license is that you distribute the software as is without any modifications, oh FUCK ME THIS IS SO UNFAIR I CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS SO FUCKING EVIL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOZZZZZZ. OMG I'VE COMMITED A FUCKING SIN! LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPERS BURNED ALIVE.

Have a bit of respect.

Wasn't it you that suggested to me that I try better to look at things from other peoples perspective?







Hypocrite.

hmmm, let me think, I can eitther use a piece of software that perfectly suits my needs and has a restriction placed on it that means I can't modify it and I have to distribute it as is, or use a shitty piece of software that I'll have to go to college and learn how to program to modify it to get it to do what I want. Duh, fucktard, of course I'm going to use the one that works perfectly and I don't give a fuck about the restrictions placed one it as why the hell should I want to modify it as it does exactly fucking what I want it to do.

Try this: "it might be a better program, but I won't support it's developers (in any way) because they're actually putting effort into restricting my freedom". Is there something wrong with that?

*sigh another thread fucked up by the hapless free/non-free debate*

True.

They place restictions on their software to gain an unfair advatage in the market.

Example, please? You're talking about in the licence, right?

(reason I'm asking is because Microsoft use much the same kinda restrictions as the much of every other non-free software developer in the world)

However someone may ligitamately place ristictions on their software to protect their hard work.

The GPL does a good enough job of that.
Good enough for Xara anyhow.

Hackers gotta eat.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Whatever thousand of free software developers do eat.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't care about this debate any more there are more important things to discuss, sure I could go through and refute eveything in your post but I don't see what it'd achieve as you and I haven't raised any new issues. I did think about deleting my previous post but I thaught, fuck it I've posted it and you'd probably written a response so I thought it would've been rude to have deleted it.

I think we should both just calm down and walk away from this one as the debate as ceased being productive.

Edit: Hang on I haven't finished yet there are more people in this thread than piratePenguin, I am aware of his opinions on this matter but what about other people.

Dark_Me,
Let's go back to the point you made bofore:

You may have noticed the qoutes on "good" and "evil". Thats because my own personal belifes have a more Buddist leaning (I think, I'm not one). I myself belive that "good" and "evil are concepts that only exist in the human mind and not in reality.

This suggests that people will have differant opinions of what good and evil are which is kind of like the GNU debate.

Have you read the other flame wars about free/non-free software before?

How about anti-MS articles on this site and others, have you read them too?

Short of forcing all software to be open source what do you think could be done to improve things?