Cheap butalbital….

Hydrocodone online. Easy way to buy hydrocodone online. Buy hydrocodone online. Buying hydrocodone online. Purchase hydrocodone online….

Buy adderall onlie….

Carl Greenland Toyota Donnelly,…

The following happened:

I saw heard some strange hard disk sounds
In a trial to check and repair I got a total lost of the disk.

So I needed a new Linux quick. I decided to give Ubuntu a try. One reason was that I do not like LVM, because its much ha…

“… Foresight sets itself apart by eliminating the need for the user to be familiar with Linux …”

If that’s really the goal, then this philosophy should extend to the console as well, at least for the major Foresight tools like conary, and reviewers who are drawn to Foresight by this slogan shouldn’t be castigated for their lack of basic *nix knowledge.

That was the devil’s advocate part. Personally, I find this approach rather unappealing and uninspiring. This philosophy is to Linux what learning to play the Guitar Hero controller is to learning a real guitar. There’s a big difference between avoiding unnecessary complexity or difficulty and smoothing the transition into what can be one of the most powerful and satisfying computing experiences a person can encounter. Instead of eliminating the need to be familiar with Linux, the goal should be to guide a user into becoming familiar with Linux, which takes them to a much happier place.

IMHO this is a usability issue just as much as PEBKAC. A wrapper around conary that prompted for elevated priveleges when necessary, but ran as the user for operations that don’t need it is much more usable and safe. yaourt in Arch Linux does this, for example, and this behavior is a pleasure even for this old *nix user who does know how to use sudo.

Thanks,

– eduard/o

[1]https://opends.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=623
[2]https://opends.dev.java.net/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=627

Regarding the ‘catastrophic’ wording it was on purpose – we need (IMHO) leaders who don’t loose their temper in the face of (the first) adversity.

Murray mentioned five years of dealing with the problem, I don’t think that’s loosing the temper in the face of the first adversity.

Sometimes you need to stop being respectful to the people that don’t deserve respect, and say things the way you think they are. Also, sincerity is healthy.

I don’t know Jeff Waugh, but I see other people agreeing with Murray, and I certainly feel the lack of strong leadership in GNOME.

The other chris has got it right on the head, you’re totally out of your depth if you think some half hearted “rebuttal” will get you anywhere here. The point is thus:

Someone very much associated with the project has some REAL CRITICAL things to put on the table and he’s put it into the open, you’ve looked Murray in the face, said “I don’t like your choice of words” and decided that the WAY HE SAID IT, overshadows in any small way, WHAT HE HAS SAID.

If you have a rebuttal, make it, don’t add to the problem by clouding the issue in exactly the same way that Murray says that Jeff does, you’re acting in the exact same way, by acting vague and barely intelligible. You need to start nailing Murray to the wall.

If you want anyone to take what you’ve said seriously, forget the “You’re a clown” type language and start pulling the legs off the spider, so to speak, you need to start analysing, breaking down, DEBUNKING and removing doubt.

All you’ve done here, is “blah blah blah blah, I don’t like murray, blah blah blah”

Whoopy doo, what a great addition to the conversation that was, now perhaps you can get back to doing whatever you were doing before, whatever that was.

Stop making stupid additions to an already stupid problem, if you have a problem with what he’s written, say so, put it on the table, but just complaining and moaning, is just childish.

What he’s written, is in a very harsh tone, but sometimes tough love works, sometimes people are sleepwalking and to wake them you need to slap them, if they keep going, their problem, but to just keep it in the family, never solves anything.

So, back to the POINT, less with the crappy blog posts.

chris thomas

You want to be saying that you respect his right to say what he had to say but he shouldn’t have said it in that uncivil way. But in fact that wasn’t a choice here–you’re really saying he shouldn’t have said it at all. And the thing is, if it’s true it’s really important and needs saying.

Even if, by absurd, jdub was, in a black and wait fashion, pure evil, lowering to his (low) levels would be the wrong thing to do, and that is just what mcummings has done

You believe that the alleged 5+ year disruption to the project is equal to an uncivil blog post?

good or bad jdub was elected, before…

This was a large part of the allegation. That the silence of those who had been wronged had contributed to the perpetuation of the problem.

– Chris

No! you got it wrong above, (You get it all right on your comment on Luis Villa blog).

My point was, and is, very plain and simple. Even if, by absurd, jdub was, in a black and wait fashion, pure evil, lowering to his (low) levels would be the wrong thing to do, and that is just what mcummings has done. He lowered the level instead of getting it higher. Regarding the ‘catastrophic’ wording it was on purpose – we need (IMHO) leaders who don’t loose their temper in the face of (the first) adversity. I fully agree that some issues are to be discussed in the open, but then, discussing openly is not mud sliding nor plain name calling.

also, there is a very important detail – good or bad jdub was elected, before…

Best Regards,

are you insinuating that there wasn’t *any* ‘another’ more polite way to say exactly the same that was said

This is a straw man. The vitriol could have been spared without losing any of the substance, and I can see the merits of that. You, however, declared that:

I don’t know for sure if Jeff Waugh is a good fit for the Gnome foundation, probably there are way better choices, but one thing i know now for sure – Murray Cumming is a catastrophic one

Along with the “jihadist” comment, not only is this precisely as uncivil as calling someone psychotic, it also states – not insinuates – that you believe that a board member’s actions are a firm second to how they write things on their own blogs. This is utterly wrongheaded, and encourages precisely the gaming of the system which was the apparent point of the argument in the first place.

– Chris

a) I agree that talk is no substitute for action
b) are you insinuating that there wasn’t *any* ‘another’ more polite way to say exactly the same that was said, without recurring to cheap insults and verbal violence ? If, so then we really have a problem – a much bigger one…

This carries on today, with most any call to decency in the US being shouted down by the establishment as being “incandescent rhetoric” from “a far {left|right}1 wing jihadist”.

– Chris