Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Best Live Linux For Christmas Giving?

Posted by timothy on from the insert-your-favorite-winter-holiday dept.

trustedserf writes "This year I am including a bootable Live Linux CD in many of my Christmas cards. As I'll be making the copies myself I may even change the default desktop background to something personal, or Christmasy before running it off on cheap CD-Rs. The objective is to show people the easiest possible route to using a linux desktop so that they will be: A) Aware and B) Pleasantly surprised. About Christmas they may also have more time to try it out too. Naturally, I'm thinking of Gnoppix, but there are other options.. I use KDE, so I have to decide between it and Gnome. Bearing in mind my objectives, what distro would you choose. Also, importantly, is it possible any of them will damage their hardware (monitors with incorrect refresh etc.) I would be *very* unhappy if that happened. How many of them would fail to boot, leaving a bad impression? Which way would you go about it for maximum "WOW"."

2 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Think Again by Hatta · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As a Democrat who hunts...

    Sure, because when the founding fathers wrote "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State", they really meant to say "Weekend hunting trips being necessary for the recreation of men". The 2nd amendment is to protect the right of revolution.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Re:Think Again by yakovlev · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    NOTE: I am NOT a gun activist, but I am generally for a restrictive(to the government) constitutional interpretation.

    I agree, one of the implied reasons for the 2nd amendment is to protect the right of revolution. "Security of a free state" was probably chosen over "defense of a free state" because they also wanted to protect the free state from the government that might rule over it.

    The problem is, the US government has already basically prevented revolution. It would require private citizens to own major military aircraft and probably also nuclear weapons for the US government to be under any credible threat from the citizenry. Is this really something you're advocating? (I'm ignoring the chance of a military coup, which is still a fight between the powerful, and not a revolution by the people.)

    Now, if we assume that they only meant security in the traditional sense, there are still good reasons to allow citizens to carry guns. Domestic police are private citizens, and are a good example. Another good example is self-defense (which is a good enough reason to qualify for a right important enough to be codified in a constitutional amendment.)