Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu To Investigate Digital Rights Management

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    LoL. You are in denial.
    Is that all you got to say? How about answering some of my questions and commenting about the points I've made? Guess I'm expecting too much from a forum troll . I must be insane, I keep trying in hope of a different result.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
      nothing of both, that proofs that you are a ashole and dumb, and to insult somebody without got insulted by this person or hurt in any different way also proofs that you are the dumb motherfucker


      I never wrote such stuff
      so another proof of your dumbness!

      its only so taht in 99.99999999999999% of any tutoral or even on official wikis you get noted that you should do that next...
      ehh. what?

      packmans user-interface is even more stupid it looks like dpkg heck even the old debian non-recommend 2000 year old apt-get looks better and more comfortable at least you dont have to use combinations of 4 shortcut-keys to do stuff, everybody can learn easily apt-get update; apt-get upgrade, but who remebers packaman -Sy ( I had to look again ) -Syu its ok for console tools to have additionaly shurtcuts for people who want to use a command 100 times a day or so, but to not have --long-name option is just stupid. I stay to it, gentoos interface is way better and even debians bad console interface is better.
      Pacman support booth short and long option names.

      look at the quality of the packages in ubuntu-ppas and then look at AUR, you will see a big big quality difference. even the gentoo files I found in bugtrackers or somewhere else years ago had better quality.
      AUR has zero package...
      The quality in the regular Arch repositories is good.

      And its not just the interface, yes I am able to use even such a bad interface, I just think that its a bad sign if that tools arent that good.
      which interface?

      Arch can maybe be a ok distri I would not have mentioned it, when I just think its totaly bad, but at least for testing new stuff even ubuntu is better, the support from the ppas to test as example very new mesa builds is better than what garbage often lies in AUR.
      PPA means personal package archive, I suppose that is package arcive. The problem with these is that either you restrict them to trustworthy individuals or you get a security hole. If you use binaries you need to know that the guy how did them was reasonably competent and not malicious. If you do this all people can not contribute.
      If you instead contribute simple build script every one can contribute. The user can read them before he build and install the package. You should not build and install from AUR if you don't understand the PKGBUILDS. Arch has more than 40000 people registered and legitimated to contribute PKGBUILD package. As you can control the PKGBUILD before you use it the security is not lower than build package from scratch yourself.
      AUR is notice-board with user contributed PKGBUILDS they works like them that is used to build the official package. But they are not the same. You can do what your like with them. The quality is shifting as regular user contribute them. And that is what is good with them.

      Maybe my comparsion with gentoo is set to high, they had maybe there best days also behind them, back in the days I used it, latestly in a weak after something a bit bigger was released there were packages or build scripts at least in unstable, now they seem to work also more with 3rd party (and because of that often less quality) stuff.
      Gentoo is a source dist. The user build theirs package before they install. Yes you do that with AUR but that is the only similarity. The packagebuild for the official Arch package is not in AUR. You can download them with ABS thought. They have good quality.

      The only one I just found out who can deliver me that option in a non-3rdparty way is fedora:
      You could consider PPA third part also

      Comment


      • #63
        PPA means personal package archive, I suppose that is package arcive. The problem with these is that either you restrict them to trustworthy individuals or you get a security hole. If you use binaries you need to know that the guy how did them was reasonably competent and not malicious. If you do this all people can not contribute.
        If you instead contribute simple build script every one can contribute. The user can read them before he build and install the package. You should not build and install from AUR if you don't understand the PKGBUILDS. Arch has more than 40000 people registered and legitimated to contribute PKGBUILD package. As you can control the PKGBUILD before you use it the security is not lower than build package from scratch yourself.
        AUR is notice-board with user contributed PKGBUILDS they works like them that is used to build the official package. But they are not the same. You can do what your like with them. The quality is shifting as regular user contribute them. And that is what is good with them.
        It is worth noting that you can "upvote" AUR packages, as a way to figure out which ones other people have used to verify the validity of them without having to read through the whole pkgbuild file, and you can also add to the usual base repositories pacman uses (I have one for Firefox Aurora) to auto-update from that repo in addition to the normal ones. They behave almost exactly like PPAs.

        And I have seen very little software without a *-git repo in the AUR, which just pulls the latest git tree and builds that. I don't think you will get newer than that.

        Comment


        • #64
          I don't understand why anyone needs to try and implement DRM at OS level.

          Why not just let the content providers provide their own way of DRM if they are so anal about it. Look at Steam, Netflix, Spotify etc, they have their clients with some form of DRM and people can choose to use them or not.

          I do feel Canonical are getting a wee bit desperate or power hungry, but then again, this entire topic stemmed from a Google Hangout conversation; this kind of stuff may never happen.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by j2723 View Post
            Is that all you got to say? How about answering some of my questions and commenting about the points I've made? Guess I'm expecting too much from a forum troll . I must be insane, I keep trying in hope of a different result.
            No one can help you. If you cant read some of the provided links then you are lost. I dont care about you calling me a troll but I do care about you skipping proof.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
              nothing of both, that proofs that you are a ashole and dumb, and to insult somebody without got insulted by this person or hurt in any different way also proofs that you are the dumb motherfucker
              I can add, I thought you did trolling in the first post... If you wasn't I apologize for my choice of words
              Last edited by Akka; 03-08-2013, 07:29 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by ElderSnake View Post
                I don't understand why anyone needs to try and implement DRM at OS level.
                Microsoft put in a protected software bus that if someone attempts to disrupt the channel it produces an interrupt resulting in violation crashes or error. DRM advocates would probably want this level of protection so that any streams are protected from immediate copying or tapping. The consequence of having a protected software bus is latency for software starts and other general checking and clearance situations. This is why Microsoft Windows become dog slow from XP.

                The fact is if someone wants to copy content they will get it, even if it means descrambling(sampler) the display of an LCD monitor after it passes security circuitry, or cracking encryption for Bluray or DVD's, etc and then sharing on major p2p sites.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                  Canonical doesn't care about your opinion on public opinion. See, most people ... will choose what looks prettier.
                  I'm sorry but in the context of you talking about Ubuntu this statement is absolutely hilarious. If there is one thing Ubuntu is not, it's being pretty...First it was shit brown and now this congealed mass of purple and orange and yeah... just wtf fugliness. Nobody else uses those color schemes not even Kubuntu,Lubuntu, or Xubuntu who have all opted for blue themes.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Akka View Post
                    I can add, I thought you did trolling in the first post... If you wasn't I apologize for my choice of words
                    I have respect when somebody apoledgise, you have to have a big ego to do that so peace.

                    I did maybe troll a bit, but thats often a good way to get fast good responses ^^.

                    But in fact I just find it a bit sad today that there are not many good alternatives to ubuntu, back in the days there were mandriva, there were even this debian-think dream linux... ^^ then there were a gentoo that was in better shape^^. Now I find it a bit sad, its maybe just a small time window and in a year fedora as example is a good alternative, and maybe arch isnt that bad, it just dont fit my bleeding edge need (sometimes).

                    I will not say its totaly bad, but I have a bit a problem to see it as a ubuntu replacement...

                    we will see what happens, I just find it a bit sad that now that ubuntu in my opinion gets to proprietary or goes extremly bad ways ( imho ), I dont like it that the alternatives are not in absolut top shape... I wished they would be in better shape now... and again I just talk about fedora and arch because they are the most interesting candidates to be such a alternative for many people...

                    I dont like opensuse much, I cant go back to debian because I dont like there changing package-aging even in testing or unstable and that this branches both get frozen too if a release-freeze happens, I cant go back to gentoo because first I have no good compile machines and also there quality did get down, or I wont ^^, but arch and fedora even I had bad feelings about a redhat rpm systems I am not totaly happy with it too at the moment because of their release problems.


                    And Mint is for me ubuntu because it uses their packages its basicly like a ppa and a installer that installs the packages from that ppa default ^^


                    We will see ^^

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      I have respect when somebody apoledgise, you have to have a big ego to do that so peace.

                      I did maybe troll a bit, but thats often a good way to get fast good responses ^^.

                      But in fact I just find it a bit sad today that there are not many good alternatives to ubuntu, back in the days there were mandriva, there were even this debian-think dream linux... ^^ then there were a gentoo that was in better shape^^. Now I find it a bit sad, its maybe just a small time window and in a year fedora as example is a good alternative, and maybe arch isnt that bad, it just dont fit my bleeding edge need (sometimes).
                      Try Mageia if you liked Mandriva. They are the old Mandriva community.

                      I don't think Arch has to old package? They have almost always the latest package upstream proclaimed stable. At least for KDE it exist a unstable repo. Other repos https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...l_Repositories and https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...r_Repositories besides that you can use git/bazar/svr PKGBUILD to get trunk.
                      But arch can not replace Ubuntu as they have different goals.

                      I dont like opensuse much, I cant go back to debian because I dont like there changing package-aging even in testing or unstable and that this branches both get frozen too if a release-freeze happens, I cant go back to gentoo because first I have no good compile machines and also there quality did get down, or I wont ^^, but arch and fedora even I had bad feelings about a redhat rpm systems I am not totaly happy with it too at the moment because of their release problems.
                      I have always thought opensuse is pretty much like Ubuntu was before. They use upstream desktops but they patch and theames them more than Arch and Fedora. They are reasonably stable but do not use as old package as debian. Besides that I think OBS is like PPAs? OBS also works for multiple distros, you can use it to build and distribute both rpm, deb and arch package. They also has a rolling release flavor, tumbleweed. But as I not have used either opensuse or Ubuntu in some years I should not say to much.
                      Last edited by Akka; 03-09-2013, 09:33 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Akka View Post
                        Try Mageia if you liked Mandriva. They are the old Mandriva community.

                        I don't think Arch has to old package? They have almost always the latest package upstream proclaimed stable.
                        I searched for gnome 3.7.xx packages for arch linux as far as I found something its only in AUR. I dont really trust AUR much after the experinces I had with it. At least here fedora is better, gnome-shell is included in the newest version, in ubuntu at least I get a good ppa, thats more than I get in arch linux. Fedora tops it, because they have gnome 3.7.x in "unstable"


                        Originally posted by Akka View Post
                        But arch can not replace Ubuntu as they have different goals.
                        whats the goal from arch? except maybe not to have a more propriatary and have a extremely easy distribuition where you nearly dont have to know magic console commands.
                        Originally posted by Akka View Post
                        I have always thought opensuse is pretty much like Ubuntu was before. They use upstream desktops but they patch and theames them more than Arch and Fedora. They are reasonably stable but do not use as old package as debian. Besides that I think OBS is like PPAs? OBS also works for multiple distros, you can use it to build and distribute both rpm, deb and arch package. They also has a rolling release flavor, tumbleweed. But as I not have used either opensuse or Ubuntu in some years I should not say to much.
                        yes their upstream stuff with debian packages I found very usefull sometimes as example the owncloud packages for ubuntu are generated by this suse-build-service.
                        But there are a few points why I wont use it.

                        1. I dont like the artwork,
                        2. the company behind Opensuse Novell I do find even more evil than canonical
                        3. I had bad experinces with the old suse yes that are really old ones, but you have to keep your stereotypes alive its even a bit hard for me to force me into using fedora, but even its also rpm based and I found the idea behind rpm always not that good than debian-based systems, not only the package formats that have file-dependencies what I think is a bad design idea and leaded to much more dependency-problems than I ever had with debian based systems, I also did never liked redhats and suses different filesystem or linux directory structure.

                        I even tryed out opensuse a few months ago, because I wrote a article for a german linux-magazine that has opensuse as target plattform, and it is better, but even there I had some mixed experinces about installing keepassx in opensuse there are no stable versions to install, mostly in some kind of "ppa", especially such a passwort-tool should be supported by the distribution, else you have to trust that such 3rd party person dont include a trojan. In Ubuntu as example there is a package in stable (universe) since hardy and maybe earlier? and there is the one universe package, not 20 different versions from different people.

                        Its shurly a way better distribution than it was when I used it, no question about that, much has changed, but I feel like its even more newby-oriented than ubuntu is.

                        About mageia, why its nothing for me, I need a big widly supported distribution, not such a me-too distribution, redhat for france (mageia), redhat for germany (opensuse) except at least there stands a big company behind this one.

                        They not even in their newest beta or alpha have gnome 3.7 packages...


                        Its a bit like changing from ubuntu to linux mint, except linux mint is (nearly) 100% compatible to ubuntu and most if not all ppas will work in mint too. in the rpm Redhat world, you would go to hell if you try to mix up rpms for different distributions.

                        As a developer you cant target 1000 different distributions, and not all distributions even the not biggest ones can make packages for all the stuff out there, here theoreticaly rolling releases distribution that have a good integrated package compile system, in theory can be just copied a old build-script increase the package version and change the link to the tgz file or even better just have one that gets the newest head from git and compiles for you.

                        And then there is the other high support possibility you are one or the most used distribution, than the developers often or the distri will give you a ppa or something like that.

                        Yes new and many packages is not everything, quality is also a question, and other stuff, but it have to be a good mixture, and even the moralic aspect is importent, I tend to like here both fedora and arch, but at the moment both dont give me 100% what I want, and I think I am not alone here, especially about fedora, fedora has at the moment bigger problems, I am optimistic that in a year thats all gone and hopefully it will be a great distribution with good and very steady release-cycle, if not its nearly like 10 years ago, a few other names, arch instead of gentoo even gentoo is still kind of alive, I would really like that some distribution would be a real head on head alternative to ubuntu. The only player I see here is fedora, and for noobs maybe opensuse.

                        Yes of course its only under my viewpoint, as aperently one of the last gnome lovers ^^ (real gnome with shell no "fork")
                        Last edited by blackiwid; 03-10-2013, 05:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by brosis View Post
                          Ask VALVE. No one is trying to circuvment Steam, unless he has serious reason.
                          Cracked Steam games are all over the place. Freeloaders still want free games, easy Steam purchase or not.

                          Steam _customers_ are less likely to break Steam DRM, but it does happen for various reasons, not all of which are "serious." It happens in a small enough quantity and for benign enough reasons not to care, usually, but it happens. The problematic ones are the folks breaking it to upload those cracked copies, of course.

                          This is part of the reason that Free To Play is catching on. You no longer care where or how consumers get a game, because you aren't charging for it. Since they're all online games, they essentially force a kind of always-on DRM by forcing you to pay to unlock content on their secured servers; there's no way to download or pirate bits in their databases, generally. You can hit any Torrent site, download the game, and then still get addicted and hand over $100+ for hats or skins or upgrades or whatever.

                          Like, say, what Valve is doing with TF2 or DOTA2. DRM becomes irrelevant, so long as you're not EA and can actually provision your servers and architect your game to scale to demand. F2P even makes more money in many cases. 1,000,000 paying players paying $60/copy (or less, on sales, older titles, smaller titles, etc) is less money than 10,000,000 players where 10% pay over $100+ in in-game sales.

                          I am a fan of more traditional content-focused games, but it's impossible to deny that traditional DRM is becoming less relevant to gaming while F2P (and its always-on requirements) trounce on tradition.

                          It's like how all the complaints over SimCity are over "DRM," while the reality is that the very game design requires and Internet connection due to how regions work. Making it pure single-player is not just a matter of removing DRM, and their model lets them eventually move to having in-game purchases to improve your city. It'd be like complaining that WoW doesn't work offline. It's conceptually similar to DRm - be a paying customer or you can't play - but it's not really DRM so much as it a consequence of how the game works. It just happens to have always-on DRM qualities, including the really bad ones like being unable to play if servers are down, being unable to play on an airplane or in remote areas, and being unplayable once the servers are no longer considered worthwhile to keep online.

                          The music and movie industry can't really do this. Unlike a game, you can save a streamed movie and give it to someone else and they get the same experience. There is no component that requires secret sauce on a server to make it work. So movies and music are still interested in traditional DRM where the OS/hardware enforces verification of payment somehow.

                          For movies, this is moving to things where the bytestream itself is encrypted and only hardware can read it. Hardware then refuses to let the CPU read frame contents and requires that the output device is a verified display-only device like a monitor. This is honestly something the Linux graphics stack in general should support it (eg like DXGI1.2/D3D11.1 does with a nice userspace API, like DRM3/libdrm could do on Linux in the future) if it wants to make full use of the various video playback hardware devices out there. It basically requires not only adding the interfaces to feed video streams into the decode hardware, but also arranging all the HDCP shenanigans, and supporting the creation of buffers with content protection flags (in an ideal world, hardware fully enforces said flags, requiring no OS secret sauce; said buffers just can't be read into the CPU, and can't be used as a source unless all output buffers are marked as protected, and the system compositor uses protected flags when possible so it can still do movie thumbnails and the like; for screenshots it can just use default textures for those windows, so screenshots work but don't try to copy from protected buffers). These protected buffers can be used for good, too, e.g. such as making any private windows protected, or browsers accessing secured sites protected, so rogue users/processes can't try to read secure details behind your back. It's like TPM or SecureBoot: usable for good or evil. Just more often for evil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                            For movies, this is moving to things where the bytestream itself is encrypted and only hardware can read it. Hardware then refuses to let the CPU read frame contents and requires that the output device is a verified display-only device like a monitor. This is honestly something the Linux graphics stack in general should support it (eg like DXGI1.2/D3D11.1 does with a nice userspace API, like DRM3/libdrm could do on Linux in the future) if it wants to make full use of the various video playback hardware devices out there. It basically requires not only adding the interfaces to feed video streams into the decode hardware, but also arranging all the HDCP shenanigans, and supporting the creation of buffers with content protection flags (in an ideal world, hardware fully enforces said flags, requiring no OS secret sauce; said buffers just can't be read into the CPU, and can't be used as a source unless all output buffers are marked as protected, and the system compositor uses protected flags when possible so it can still do movie thumbnails and the like; for screenshots it can just use default textures for those windows, so screenshots work but don't try to copy from protected buffers). These protected buffers can be used for good, too, e.g. such as making any private windows protected, or browsers accessing secured sites protected, so rogue users/processes can't try to read secure details behind your back. It's like TPM or SecureBoot: usable for good or evil. Just more often for evil.
                            And to what leads that unneeded polution with no NO possitive site. Lets see a example the very hyped new linuxish "open" raspberry PI. Wanted to buy one for my brother so he could stream over a tvheadend server on his nas or play directly dvb stream and Radio and that he could also play his legal dvd-copies (he is oldschool and buys such stuff).

                            So what happend next, uih, the hardware is totaly capable to play mpeg2 (dvd) but its a antifeature included, its crippeld its like dongeld, you have to pay some money not much but some money to aktive a workaround to this made bug, a anti-feature included that nobody asked for. So you say ok then pay this money, that has now several aspects why this will not happen. surely the most importent is that paypal is a very unsecure very unethical company I dont trust 1 Cent.

                            Thats the only possibility to pay this bullshit, to pay this developers for creating this antifeature.


                            Then it goes even further, there was a article on this side how there is a kind of drm-hardware-hal or something a kind of hardware-driver, that does like it gives you a opensource driver.

                            So why do you think they made that, so they can advertise fully opensource AND shut down each try to get a full-non-drm-controlled driver.


                            That has consequences, the alterantive is now to ahve a 50 watt or at least 20-30 Watt pc that easily handels to play dvds and maybe even 720p and 1080p by software by the cpu. So in reality often a cpu uses 5-10 times the power than a gpu could do it. So that companies did not have any benefit from such policy, they just force thousends of people worldwide into watching movies with cpu instead of gpu.


                            So if you think that 100.000 people worldwide use now a oldschool pc instead of such hardware, that would be 100.000 * 30w = 3.000.000 Watt = 3Mega-watt per second? I dont know how you calculate out the wattage of such coal-plants and stuff do they really generate 1GW (per Second) k... so its not much, lets waste energy ^^ fuck it ^^

                            rofl

                            buy more expensive cpus to heat our planet faster ^^ the essential is, that this company can make us pay 1000 times for the content we even pay by choice already rofl ^^

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                              I searched for gnome 3.7.xx packages for arch linux as far as I found something its only in AUR. I dont really trust AUR much after the experinces I had with it. At least here fedora is better, gnome-shell is included in the newest version, in ubuntu at least I get a good ppa, thats more than I get in arch linux. Fedora tops it, because they have gnome 3.7.x in "unstable"
                              whats the goal from arch? except maybe not to have a more propriatary and have a extremely easy distribuition where you nearly dont have to know magic console commands.
                              I dont think it's a goal to get as many user as possible it's the biggest difference. They don't try to build a disto to get newbe user. The idea is that the community build a distro for the community, not the rest of the world. The rest of us can use it if we like but they do not make the distro for us.
                              Another fundament is that upstrem choose when a program is stable. When they release a stable version Arch push it in the repo. Everything is rolling and they try to minimize patches and instead use latest stable version.
                              [/QUOTE]

                              1. I dont like the artwork,
                              2. the company behind Opensuse Novell I do find even more evil than canonical
                              3. I had bad experinces with the old suse yes that are really old ones, but you have to keep your stereotypes alive its even a bit hard for me to force me into using fedora, but even its also rpm based and I found the idea behind rpm always not that good than debian-based systems, not only the package formats that have file-dependencies what I think is a bad design idea and leaded to much more dependency-problems than I ever had with debian based systems, I also did never liked redhats and suses different filesystem or linux directory structure.
                              1 Change artwork.
                              2 Attachmate bought Suse and is the owner, not Novel.
                              3 I don't think its any big difference between the packagemanagement systems. They are all mostly the same. Glorified archives of compressed files with some metadata.

                              I even tryed out opensuse a few months ago, because I wrote a article for a german linux-magazine that has opensuse as target plattform, and it is better, but even there I had some mixed experinces about installing keepassx in opensuse there are no stable versions to install, mostly in some kind of "ppa", especially such a passwort-tool should be supported by the distribution, else you have to trust that such 3rd party person dont include a trojan. In Ubuntu as example there is a package in stable (universe) since hardy and maybe earlier? and there is the one universe package, not 20 different versions from different people.
                              I do not use either the package or opensuse but when I google it I got the impression it is in the
                              HTML Code:
                              "security:passwordmanagement"
                              repositoy I have no idea whats the status is, as I don't use opensuse

                              About mageia, why its nothing for me, I need a big widly supported distribution, not such a me-too distribution, redhat for france (mageia), redhat for germany (opensuse) except at least there stands a big company behind this one.
                              And then there is the other high support possibility you are one or the most used distribution, than the developers often or the distri will give you a ppa or something like that.
                              I think its easier to build stuff like that yourself as long it's not a complete desktop. So I have not any problem with use a small distro.

                              Gnome unstable branches you probably need AUR to in arch. To get repositories with prebuild package from odd number releases you probably should use opensuse or fedora. Arch probably build the betas and release candidates or something like that . To get trunk I think you need to build it yourselves.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                first thanx for that detailed answer.

                                Originally posted by Akka View Post
                                2 Attachmate bought Suse and is the owner, not Novel.
                                Didnt know that, interesting.

                                Originally posted by Akka View Post
                                3 I don't think its any big difference between the packagemanagement systems. They are all mostly the same. Glorified archives of compressed files with some metadata.
                                yes maybe not so much rpm vs debian, I also think its more a cultural thing, and a way to go, redhat tended to not have a very big own repository and there were sites like rpmfind.net and stuff where everybody could build there own rpms and upload it. like setup.exe files, the quality was not that good when you got most stuff from as example debian.

                                Originally posted by Akka View Post
                                I do not use either the package or opensuse but when I google it I got the impression it is in the
                                HTML Code:
                                "security:passwordmanagement"
                                repositoy I have no idea whats the status is, as I don't use opensuse
                                and i did not found that out in my recherge for the article ^^ so either that speaks against me, or against the bad documentation of the distribution ^^



                                Originally posted by Akka View Post
                                I think its easier to build stuff like that yourself as long it's not a complete desktop. So I have not any problem with use a small distro.
                                I dont like to build much stuff completly alone, even with buildfiles like in gentoo its not ok for me, because I dont want to compile all stuff each day or so... or each weak, with low-power machines. And even some packages I like it when I get builds, and I dont need always the newest alpha stuff, but sometimes I want to test that, as example I want to see how good owncloud works with the new gnome 3.8.

                                Sometimes I want to test out a new mesa+driver because interesting new features are in, like when aiglx was supported first time or something like that. But I also want to have the option for a kind of "stable" experince, even something like a LTS version would be ok for the machines of my relatives.

                                Originally posted by Akka View Post
                                Gnome unstable branches you probably need AUR to in arch. To get repositories with prebuild package from odd number releases you probably should use opensuse or fedora. Arch probably build the betas and release candidates or something like that . To get trunk I think you need to build it yourselves.
                                yes fedora is my favorit at the moment. I hope they become THE gnome-shell distribution for everybody noob and geek. At least a strong option for ubuntu users that dont like where ubuntu is going to now, they now just nearly fork linux as whole. at least X and everything on top of the kernel, and I would not wonder when they in a few years make a kernel-fork or patchset, to make it better suitable for closedsource driver vendors or something like that.

                                And dont get me wrong its not just a short reaction because I didnt like the last 2-3 desitions they did, I didnt liked what ubuntu did for some years now, but I was to lazy to really switch over to something else, except some test-instalations of arch linux as example or funtoo ^^. But they just top always what they did wrong in the past release after release or month after month...

                                What me really made stronger think about migration, was what they did to gnome, its nearly a sabotage act what they did, the switch from gnome 2 to gnome 3 was hard anyway, because of the traditionalists, and now they even created a 3rd fraction. Its seems that they are social psychos that cant work together with any upstream.

                                And then their mindset including more and more advertisement (in the shop) and adware and stuff... it was good for linux that they existed they set for linux desktop new minimal standarts but now they gone to far, the compromisses did go to far, if you really dont care about freedom just install android or buy a hardware with android on it, there you also have linux...


                                Sorry for that long explanation...




                                UPDATE:

                                btw you are wrong I dont know what version of keepassx that should be but on the homepage the newest version of keepassx is 0.4.3 also on the sourceforge site, the package from that passwort-management repository has the version number is:

                                1.9.73

                                so that makes no sense for me. Hmm ok seems that they skipped version 1.0 and did go from 0.4.3 to 2.0 alpha, but still I cant give in a Article for newer Linux users them a hint how to install a Alpha or Prealpha version, if that was even there when I wrote this article. So maybe they do it right for the future, but that they dont have a stable 0.4.3 version in the distribution at least tells something about their past ^^
                                Last edited by blackiwid; 03-10-2013, 09:47 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X