I'm not entirely sure about this, but I suspect that you could do a running upgrade from Ubuntu to the corresponding Mint version - it is, after all, a spinoff with different default settings and just a bit of custom software.
I've installed Mint Julia, the equivalent of Lucid, and I'm still running it. Very very happy with it. I briefly run every new version of Mint and Ubuntu in a VM, and I have to say, Mint keeps being better for me. I'll have no qualms whatsoever installing the newest one when any PC gets replaced.
I'm pretty sure if you upgrade your install, all the software you're using is going to get upgraded, too. Only on new installs will you have to manuall install something if you want it.
You should also have a look at Linux Mint, by the way. It's Ubuntu, but with Shuttleworth's illusions of UI grandeur taken out again.
I don't see why it would be removed as long as someone maintains the package. What, are they running low on space in the repositories?
If there's a maintainer, the package remains available. There's even a load of packages out there for software that is no longer maintained, but as long as someone rebuilds the package for every new release, it stays in the repo.
My experience is that the software center filters out a lot of the less common packages. I use it when I want someting generic (say, I feel like playing a game), but when I'm looking for a very specific thing, it often doesn't show me every choice. Synaptic does.
It all depends on the use, I guess. The target audience of Ubuntu is Joe L. User, and he's better off with Software Center presenting him only the most common things for what he wants.
Me, I'll simply throw my questions at apt. Synaptic gets used only if I have complex searches or want to leisurely browse packages.
Slightly more accurate would be "as long as you can install an alternative and uninstall the preinstalled one". Microsoft claimed for a very long time that IE was an essential part of the operating system and removing it would break the system.
True, but it is also quite expected that attribution printed in the gutter of a magazine should count as copyright information; thus, this decision means 'I didn't know' doesn't fly if the info isn't attached to the actual picture.
> No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had
That sounds positively like Communism, to me. Yes, people, your lord and creator wants you to be communists. Oh, what's that you say? You fought against the communist USSR for years, until it curled up and died? Oh, yes, your lord and creator is going to LOVE that one.
I strongly disagree. The ones who pay for porn on the internet are the reason you and me can get it for free. If no-one pays for it, it doesn't get made.
That being said, these days that no longer fully holds true, thanks to xtube and the like providing oozes of homemade; but one has to wonder how much of their money comes from paid advertising accounts posting 15-second clips of commercial porn.
I would rather they got integrated. Tin Eye does a wonderful job, but they don't have the sheer capacity Google has for absorbing the entirety of the internets every ten seconds.
Oh, I fully agree, it's just that a piece of candy isn't particularly much of a point. Maybe the drunk millionaire will have seen the error of his ways, if he remembers what happened the morning after.
I wouldn't count too much on it, though - he probably fully realises that there are people who can't be bought or aren't worth the trouble, just like I understand that there are people who are too dependent on Windows to switch; and he'll probably follow the same policy, too: steer clear of them and stick to the things where you *can* do something useful.
I'm sorry, but I can't rid myself of the impression that, even if the AC account *is* true, "drunk millionaire offering a million to eat a piece of candy" is not exactly the battlefront of the freedom wars where we should deploy the tanks. Principles are a good thing, but so is moderation.
While I admire your resolve, I personally would have considered getting a million euro from a drunk idiot for eating a piece of candy to prove an entirely different point; namely that rich and stupid are not mutually exclusive. Eating small amounts of candy for pay is not particularly high on my list of moral objections.
You've been claiming this during the previous 8 years of Bush administration, too; which was supposedly from the opposing party. Frankly, we don't see the difference, but that's probably a cultural thing.
Stop making excuses and get that damn revolution started already, before we are forced to come over and, how do you guys call it, spread some democracy.
Individual users might. If you're aiming for the corporate market, you can be damn sure that IT would like to not load yet another piece of bloatware on every damn pc in the company, and increasing startup times even more.
Why did you think corporate PCs don't have the half-dozen HP, Yahoo and other silly icons in the taskbar?
That's a good point, but on the other hand they keep managing to get elected while spending what, a quarter or so of the gnp on the military. The space program, for all it's bad management and political strubbles, costs only a fraction of that.
I realise I'm probably preaching to the choir, but cut the military by half and invest that into various long-term R&D and science things, and in a decade you'll again be the nation you were half a century ago.
Slashdot Mirror
> the command line tools aren't being taken out of the CD, or even the base install.
That *would* be a pretty impressive feat, I guess.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I suspect that you could do a running upgrade from Ubuntu to the corresponding Mint version - it is, after all, a spinoff with different default settings and just a bit of custom software.
I've installed Mint Julia, the equivalent of Lucid, and I'm still running it. Very very happy with it. I briefly run every new version of Mint and Ubuntu in a VM, and I have to say, Mint keeps being better for me. I'll have no qualms whatsoever installing the newest one when any PC gets replaced.
I'm pretty sure if you upgrade your install, all the software you're using is going to get upgraded, too. Only on new installs will you have to manuall install something if you want it.
You should also have a look at Linux Mint, by the way. It's Ubuntu, but with Shuttleworth's illusions of UI grandeur taken out again.
I don't see why it would be removed as long as someone maintains the package. What, are they running low on space in the repositories?
If there's a maintainer, the package remains available. There's even a load of packages out there for software that is no longer maintained, but as long as someone rebuilds the package for every new release, it stays in the repo.
My experience is that the software center filters out a lot of the less common packages. I use it when I want someting generic (say, I feel like playing a game), but when I'm looking for a very specific thing, it often doesn't show me every choice. Synaptic does.
It all depends on the use, I guess. The target audience of Ubuntu is Joe L. User, and he's better off with Software Center presenting him only the most common things for what he wants.
Me, I'll simply throw my questions at apt. Synaptic gets used only if I have complex searches or want to leisurely browse packages.
Slightly more accurate would be "as long as you can install an alternative and uninstall the preinstalled one". Microsoft claimed for a very long time that IE was an essential part of the operating system and removing it would break the system.
True, but it is also quite expected that attribution printed in the gutter of a magazine should count as copyright information; thus, this decision means 'I didn't know' doesn't fly if the info isn't attached to the actual picture.
The visuals are pretty amazing, though.
Yes, but that doesn't actually work, does it? With all that, err, shielding we^Wthey have, it's like water off a duck.
Socialists?
> No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had
That sounds positively like Communism, to me. Yes, people, your lord and creator wants you to be communists. Oh, what's that you say? You fought against the communist USSR for years, until it curled up and died? Oh, yes, your lord and creator is going to LOVE that one.
Is that the newest euphemism for being stupid? This *is* a Slashdot editor we're talking about.
In other words, another typical Slashdot summary.
Floppies are no longer made, so you have been taken care of.
And on the other side of the mountain, downhill is north. Your point?
I strongly disagree. The ones who pay for porn on the internet are the reason you and me can get it for free. If no-one pays for it, it doesn't get made.
That being said, these days that no longer fully holds true, thanks to xtube and the like providing oozes of homemade; but one has to wonder how much of their money comes from paid advertising accounts posting 15-second clips of commercial porn.
I would rather they got integrated. Tin Eye does a wonderful job, but they don't have the sheer capacity Google has for absorbing the entirety of the internets every ten seconds.
The right, not the obligation.
Would it help to say that I'm extremely moderate ?
Oh, I fully agree, it's just that a piece of candy isn't particularly much of a point. Maybe the drunk millionaire will have seen the error of his ways, if he remembers what happened the morning after.
I wouldn't count too much on it, though - he probably fully realises that there are people who can't be bought or aren't worth the trouble, just like I understand that there are people who are too dependent on Windows to switch; and he'll probably follow the same policy, too: steer clear of them and stick to the things where you *can* do something useful.
I'm sorry, but I can't rid myself of the impression that, even if the AC account *is* true, "drunk millionaire offering a million to eat a piece of candy" is not exactly the battlefront of the freedom wars where we should deploy the tanks. Principles are a good thing, but so is moderation.
While I admire your resolve, I personally would have considered getting a million euro from a drunk idiot for eating a piece of candy to prove an entirely different point; namely that rich and stupid are not mutually exclusive. Eating small amounts of candy for pay is not particularly high on my list of moral objections.
Which, incidentally, is very likely to be more accurate than either of you want it to be.
Dear U.S.A.,
You've been claiming this during the previous 8 years of Bush administration, too; which was supposedly from the opposing party. Frankly, we don't see the difference, but that's probably a cultural thing.
Stop making excuses and get that damn revolution started already, before we are forced to come over and, how do you guys call it, spread some democracy.
Signed, everyone.
Individual users might. If you're aiming for the corporate market, you can be damn sure that IT would like to not load yet another piece of bloatware on every damn pc in the company, and increasing startup times even more.
Why did you think corporate PCs don't have the half-dozen HP, Yahoo and other silly icons in the taskbar?
Not drinking the "rich user experience over the web" kool-aid?
If you want a webpage, create a webpage. If you want an application, create a damn application.
That's a good point, but on the other hand they keep managing to get elected while spending what, a quarter or so of the gnp on the military. The space program, for all it's bad management and political strubbles, costs only a fraction of that.
I realise I'm probably preaching to the choir, but cut the military by half and invest that into various long-term R&D and science things, and in a decade you'll again be the nation you were half a century ago.