[Manchunian]

One of the reasons I changed from Ubuntu to Debian was that I thought that Ubuntu's attitude stank when it comes to sharing. It uses Debian tools, Debian repositrories, and other Debian successes, packages it up a little differently and gets all the credit. Debian never flinches in its sharing, but Ubuntu doesn't give anything back at all, keeping all its bug reports to itself. If Ubutnu wasn't there, Debian would still be an excellent, albeit a less well-known, distribution; if Debian wasn't there, there'd be no Ubuntu, at least there wouldn't be the Ubuntu that we all know and love today. I'm not knocking Ubuntu, not at all, and I believe that it's largely thanks to Ubuntu that Linux has become more and more used and has made such progress - and I never hesitate to recommend newbies to use it.
Also, and here I have to agree with IsaacKuo, I find the releeas schedules far too frequent. Just because something is new, doesn't mean it's better. With Ubuntu, every six months you're faced with the decision to either risk do a system upgrade, which can break things, or starting over from scratch and re-installling. This is much less of a headache with Debian. It's also one of my reasons for preferring a rolling distro today.
As for the bootsplash, I again concur with IsaacKuo. In my early Linux days, when I was using Mandriva, I thought that a Linux boot was a terribly hit and miss affair: sometimes it took over five minutes to boot. I was tempted to take it off in those days because I didn't find that very reassuring. Thanks to the verbose boots I used later, I learned that it was fsck checking the hard disk and I felt grateful! Also, I've lost count the number of times I have been able to detect and resolve problems thanks to those messages that appear. And it does show you what goes on under the hood and gives you the motivation to find out a little more.

[carlosponti]

what amazes me is how ubuntu has become so popular and yet rpms still sort of dominate as the package of choice.

[techieMoe]

Originally Posted by fingal

Also without R. Stallman's idealism - which you publically despise - we wouldn't have fully working OSes. A kernel can't - on its own - form a complete operating system: it needs applications/utilities as well.

On that same token, without Linus Torvalds' pragmatism, we also wouldn't have fully working OSes. We'd still be waiting for the Hurd kernel.

It is possible to be idealistic and pragmatic. You are entirely mistaken to take such a binary approach to what is after all a complex set of issues. Some of us like the best of both worlds.

I don't see it as something one can be "mistaken" about. We're talking about concepts here. Concepts are very seldom black and white things; they're all up for interpretation. I simply take a more black-and-white interpretation of idealism and pragmatism.

My definition of an idealist is someone who lives in the clouds of their own head. They have wonderful, sunny and entirely unrealistic hopes and dreams. These people are worthless to society as a whole except as muses for the more level-headed. Your definition apparently differs.

I admire Stallman and Linus. They are very different characters, and everyone has personality flaws, but without both of them we would have nothing to talk about on here.

I admire the work Richard Stallman did when he worked. He doesn't any longer. In his old age he has become a full-time activist. It is possible to respect someone's past work and loathe their current.

I think it's wrong of you to suggest that idealism has no merit.

You're of course welcome to that opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. Except in the case I mentioned above, I honestly think idealists are worthless.

I can think of a great many social achievements in my own country which would never have happened without idealism. In fact, life would simply not be worth living had it not been for many of these. Your world of pure pragmatism sounds empty.

Perhaps to a communist a world of commercialism feels empty. Or to a fish a world of air seems empty. Perspective weighs heavily into this. I don't discount that dreamers are fun to talk to and perhaps use as a sounding board for a more concrete invention. I just don't think they should be deified, or preferred over those who make real progress.

[IsaacKuo]

Originally Posted by techieMoe

On that same token, without Linus Torvalds' pragmatism, we also wouldn't have fully working OSes. We'd still be waiting for the Hurd kernel.

Or we'd be using FreeBSD's kernel. Of course, we wouldn't be calling Debian GNU/Linux a "linux distribution", we'd be calling Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a "BSD distribution".

[fingal]

I agree that our definitions of idealism differ. I don't for one minute think of an idealist as someone whose head is in the clouds. I think of someone like that as a creative person or perhaps a visionary. Sometimes visionaries are able to bring their ideals to fruition, sometimes not.

From time to time there are pragmatists who are unable to make their ideas concrete: for example history is littered with military dictators who tried to do just that, and who were defeated by more idealistic souls. It is entirely possible to be pragmatic and deluded, just as it is possible to be a deluded idealist.

I'm not taking sides. As I get older I see a little more than I did before, but not the whole picture: I would be lying if I said as much. I have no black and white view of things: the world isn't made that way.

[Manchunian]

My definition of an idealist is someone who lives in the clouds of their own head. They have wonderful, sunny and entirely unrealistic hopes and dreams.

Thanks to idealists (notably Rousseau) we had the French revolution and the consequent spread of democracy around the world. Thanks to idealists man landed on the moon. Idealism isn't irrealism and shouldn't be confused with dreaming: so much technological and social progress can find it's roots to one man (or woman) lying on his or her bed imagining what could be.

[elija]

Originally Posted by Manchunian

so much technological and social progress can find it's roots to one man (or woman) lying on his or her bed imagining what could be.

This is very true, but idealism should never be confused with extremism. To my mind
Stallman is not as different from Bill Gates as I imagine he'd like to think he is. They are
both extremists albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum.

While I absolutely love Richard Stallmans' definition of free software and I have a sneaking
even reluctant admiration for Bill Gates' single minded vision and drive to realise it, I find
that reality usually lies in the middle.

GNUSense is the only OS that meets Stallmans' criteria and Windows is the only one that
meets Gates criteria. How many of us are using either of them at the moment? I am using
an OS that is in the middle,though tending to the free.

The bit of software that I use for coding is called Komodo Edit. It is free as in beer but
not free as in speech. Can you see either man liking it?

[Manchunian]

elija: if you don't fancy my last suggestion of trying Archlinux, why not give Sidux a go? They call it "Debian hot and spicy" and I've heard lots of good things about it. I've also thought of giving it a go myself; perhaps I will one day.

[elija]

I'm going to stick with Ubuntu for now - I need to get some real work done. Arch is still
kind of scary. Sidux does look kind of interesting but it is based on sid, which I understand
means Still In Development

[Manchunian]

Yes, Sidux is based on Sid, but the objective of Sidux is to produce a stable version of Sid. From what I've heard, they're doing a good job. Talking of work though, I'd better be off!