KDE 3.5.6 released w Kubuntu packages

[Derek Broughton]

On Tuesday 30 January 2007 02:53, Donn wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 02:36, Derek Broughton wrote:
> > Please don't CC me, it's rude.  This is a _list_.
>
> Didn't do it intentionally. I usually hit 'a' in kmail and it fills in the
> fields. Anyway, didn't know 'CC' was rude.

You're still doing it.
>
> > I didn't say that - but you asked that Ubuntu put up a disclaimer that
> > would be untrue.
>
> And I argued why I thought it was not untrue. Anyway it's a conversation
> and nothing more. Cool down.

I'm cool - you objected that you weren't lying, and I tried to point out
that I never thought you were, simply that if Ubuntu were to say what you
wanted _they_ (imo) would be lying.
>
> > So?  You've unfavorably compared us to Windows.  How would you get the
> > latest Firefox on Windows?  I haven't tried to get it myself - I'm
> > prepared to wait for it to show up in Ubuntu - but if I want Firefox 2,
> > I would like to bet that I can get a copy OFF THE SAME PAGE as the 
> > Windows download.
>
> I have answered this question many times in this thread.

There wasn't a question (well, there was, but it was purely rhetorical). I'm
saying that I can do with Ubuntu exactly what I would do with Windows. That 
is not always the case, I accept, but it is with firefox.  I'm not even
going to bet about that part, it's a fact - the bet was simply that for
Firefox the download would be on the same page.

> > _Everything_ that's available for Ubuntu is available in tarballs that
> > can be installed on your system.   ./configure; make; sudo make install. 
> > Done.
>
> Sure, not the point.

Of course it's the point.  You're complaining that you can't get updated 
software for Firefox from Ubuntu.  You can't get updated software for
Firefox from Microsoft either.  The difference is that eventually Ubuntu
will provide it, Microsoft won't.  Meanwhile, if you want the latest and
greatest, you go to the provider's site, where you will either find
binaries packaged for Ubuntu (or perhaps Debian), just as you would for
Windows, or you get at least a tarball, which requires just slightly more
effort to install than most windows apps.
>
> > This is the usual anti-Linux argument.  Set up a straw man comparing
> > Windows and Linux, then show that Linux doesn't do something -
> > invariably a closer analysis shows Windows doesn't either.
>
> You need to chill.

You need to be more polite.

> There's no need for aggression. 

It's insulting to start an argument and then accuse respondents of
aggression. We disagree, nothing more.  If you can't handle that, you
really need to stay off the Internet.  It's equally insulting to repeatedly
tell me I'm wrong, without explaining why I'm wrong.  I'm a big boy - if
I've misunderstood your argument, I can accept that, but continually
telling me to read the thread just suggests you don't actually _have_ an
argument.

> I am not setting up strawmen or being anti-linux, read the thread.

I disagree.  You have argued that Ubuntu is not as user-friendly as Windows 
because it doesn't provide continuous updates to non-Ubuntu software.  
Ubuntu's older products provide continuous updates to the core ("ubuntu") 
software for bug & security fixes, for the lifetime of the release, just as 
Windows does.  Additionally, Ubuntu sometimes backports updates for other
software, which Windows _never_ does.
>
> We have been asked not to continue this in kubuntu-users.

The discussion started here, it stays here.  I don't move threads because 
someone else can't handle filtering.
-- 
derek