Will The Catalyst Driver Work On Ubuntu 11.04 At Launch?

[next9]

I thought we were discussing the utility of both https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas and http://software.opensuse.org/.

For that matter, Kdenlive is available from http://software.opensuse.org/ so they mustn't feel that its status regarding patent infringement deems it inappropriate for distribution from there. That surely can't be the explanation for why I'm unable to search for "kdenlive-0.7.7.1-3.6.src.rpm" and get a result.

The problem I seem to have is that I'm unable to directly search for a package from http://software.opensuse.org/. The reason this is problematic for me is you want to assert "You can not be serious this mare?s nest is usable tool for seaching anything!" when refering to https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas because "Ok. So how do i find some exact package for exact Ubuntu version using this tool?" yet when I try to do the same thing from http://software.opensuse.org/ I don't seem to be able to.

Are you crazy? How can "download.opensuse.org" search service can give you search results for a specific package that is NOT HOSTED on "download.opensuse.org"?

Or discussion is about how well can be package searched in particular search services, how the results are organized and readable, ... and you are arguing with package distributed somewhere else. You must be demagogue.

Neither you can find libdvdcss or w32codecs in Ubuntu repositories or download.ubuntu.com. Just because they were quarantined at medibuntu.org.

The fact that you now want to back-track and direct me to a different service than http://software.opensuse.org/ to provide me with functionality you wanted to slag off https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas for lacking suggests to me that being unable to simply "find some exact package for exact Ubuntu version using this tool?" to quote you is possibly also a same type of failure of http://software.opensuse.org/

Bullshit. I do not want to search specific package that have never been hosted at PPA, to show you that PPA search service is bad (which is exactly what you are trying now). It is you, using this devious logic!

I wanted you to show:

find some exact package for exact Ubuntu version using this tool?

Everybody understand this, for idiot like you, I add obvious condition:

Package must exist in PPA

because, you can not show searching capabilities, where you search something non-existent.

When you search package of your choice on PPA site, search engine will not give you results of packages found, only a big mess of some repositories.

When you search download.opensuse.org, search engine will give you results of packages, versions, repositories, even distributions a distribution versions if you search among all distributions and such packages exist in buildservice. That is why is download.opensuse.org much better tool, because it gives you COMPLETE RESULT, not some partial information like PPA search.

And if I was looking for say "kdenlive_0.7.8-0ubuntu0~sunab~maverick1_amd64.deb" I could simply type it into "teh google" and get a result.

Wow,in Ubuntu it is even worse than I expected. I just type "kdenlive" into webpin.

[BlackStar]

Wasn't Novell sold out to a Microsoft-led conglomerate a few weeks back? Oh, the irony of opensuse fanboys bashing Canonical as detrimental to opensource.

[mugginz]

Are you crazy? How can "download.opensuse.org" search service can give you search results for a specific package that is NOT HOSTED on "download.opensuse.org"?

I thought we were talking about http://software.opensuse.org/ and http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ when discussing the Ubuntu alalogues of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas and http://packages.ubuntu.com/

What's this "download.opensuse.org" got to do with it?

Or discussion is about how well can be package searched in particular search services, how the results are organized and readable, ... and you are arguing with package distributed somewhere else. You must be demagogue.

No, you mustn't be comprehending.

You were asserting that "That is not the same. You can not search package. You can not search package of explicit version. This PPA tool gives you back only some uncertain list of repositories.

It does not seach packages. It does search PPA repository names which is really ineffective. "

So I attempted to do the same with both http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ and http://software.opensuse.org/ which you were naming as superior to the Ubuntu alternatives.

Guess what..... Searching for "kdenlive-0.7.8-9.32.i586.rpm" which is a package which is available on http://software.opensuse.org/ can't be done. You have to search for the generic project name...... sounds suspiciously like what you do with https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas no?

Neither you can find libdvdcss or w32codecs in Ubuntu repositories or download.ubuntu.com. Just because they were quarantined at medibuntu.org.

This is not the issue at hand. The matter of availability or not due to patent incumbency was a misdirection you tried to throw a couple of posts back. We can discuss how OpenSuse and Ubuntu both handle this scenario if you wish through but it's not related to your above attack on Ubuntu.

The fact that you now want to back-track and direct me to a different service than http://software.opensuse.org/ to provide me with functionality you wanted to slag off https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas for lacking suggests to me that being unable to simply "find some exact package for exact Ubuntu version using this tool?" to quote you is possibly also a same type of failure of http://software.opensuse.org/

Bullshit. I do not want to search specific package that have never been hosted at PPA, to show you that PPA search service is bad (which is exactly what you are trying now). It is you, using this devious logic!

You want to suggest that you can search for a specific package on either http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ or http://software.opensuse.org/ and suggest it's something you can't do with the Ubuntu equivelents but when I attempt to use them to do a specific package search, guess what. It didn't seem to work.

When I called you out on that I expected you to either show me how to do it or acknowledge you were wrong.


But let look at that requirement of your again.

"That is not the same. You can not search package. You can not search package of explicit version. This PPA tool gives you back only some uncertain list of repositories.

It does not seach packages. It does search PPA repository names which is really ineffective."



The above is discoverable from guess where....... https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas

I wanted you to show:

find some exact package for exact Ubuntu version using this tool?

But I drew you attention to the fact that I was unable to do the same with the OpenSuse resources yet you call the Ubuntu alternatives unsuitable because they lack this ability. So do you agree that the OpenSuse options are as crappy as the Ubuntu ones?

Everybody understand this, for idiot like you, I add obvious condition:

Package must exist in PPA

because, you can not show searching capabilities, where you search something non-existent.

I can find a package I need to find in a PPA with the PPA search facilities.
I can find a package I need to find in the standard repos with the standard Ubuntu facilities.

I can do the same with the OpenSuse alternates but your specific requirement seemed to be

"That is not the same. You can not search package. You can not search package of explicit version. This PPA tool gives you back only some uncertain list of repositories."

Yet when I challenge you to show me where in the URLs you gave me you can do the VERY same thing you are yet to enlighten me.

I repeat. The files I was searching for on both http://software.opensuse.org/ and http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ were available from http://software.opensuse.org/, they just weren't searchable via a specification of exact requirements.

When you search package of your choice on PPA site, search engine will not give you results of packages found, only a big mess of some repositories.

When you search download.opensuse.org, search engine will give you results of packages, versions, repositories, even distributions a distribution versions if you search among all distributions and such packages exist in buildservice. That is why is download.opensuse.org much better tool, because it gives you COMPLETE RESULT, not some partial information like PPA search.

And when you search http://packages.ubuntu.com/ your given a really nice method to search with fine detail the standard repos and when using https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas you can get the same as you get from http://software.opensuse.org/ with a couple of clicks or even better, use the interface most people use which is "teh google"

Wow,in Ubuntu it is even worse than I expected. I just type "kdenlive" into webpin.

I can see I'm absolutely giving you far too much credit here aren't I.

[next9]

Wasn't Novell sold out to a Microsoft-led conglomerate a few weeks back? Oh, the irony of opensuse fanboys bashing Canonical as detrimental to opensource.

You would better tell us, exactly what bad did opensuse to opensource community...

Funny I read about evil Novell here and there, but the reality is, even such ugly company like Microsoft contributed more to the opensource than Canonical

[next9]

Well. It seems I finely see your point here.

I thought we were talking about http://software.opensuse.org/ and http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ when discussing the Ubuntu alalogues of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas and http://packages.ubuntu.com/

We started discussion with somebody else, not you, talking about additional and/or third party repositories. That is where I started opposing to argument, that launchpad PPAs is something remarkably good. I gave example, what system is much better alternative - Opensuse Build Service.

There are many differences I mentioned:

1) OBS Opensuse repositories contain full official support for at least 4 versions of Opensuse simultaneously. Opensuse 11.1 comes from the end of 2008. What kind of support for Ubuntu 8.10 is available today and what recent versions of applications you can use in such Ubuntu 8.10? I doubt, there is something like KDE 4.5 for Ubuntu 8.10. I doubt there is something like KDE 4.5 for ubuntu 9.04, 9.10. I have read at Kubuntu.org, some KDE 4.5 support for 10.04 exists, but was terminated at version 4.5.1. Same applies for Openoffice, Firefox, Wine, etc... Result? OBS offers me much more than PPA.

2) OBS Opensuse repositories contain Official project update repositories. They are even available trough Yast after installation. They are heavily described at Opensuse wiki.

Any Ubuntu PPA update repository (likde KDE 4.5) is unofficial thing from "somebody". I searched Ubuntu wiki, for topics like KDE, GNOME etc... I did not found any mention about if these projects have some official version-upgrade support after ubuntu release. Result? OBS offers me much more.

3) I claimed, that package searching is much easier at OBS, than at PPA. I was wrong, that PPA does not allow search exact package, only repository of the searched name. Apologize myself. I was wrong.
. But that does not change anything. The fact I was unable to find out, how to search packages at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas (have to select "PPA supported series first") show, the PPA web interface much worse arranged than OBS, where the search is much more intuitive. (Amarok example PPA, Amarok example OBS). Everybody can compare, what is more informative, easier to find. In addition, with PPA I can not (one) click to browse http/ftp the target repository manualy, I can not add repository and install desired package by one click from there. Again, it is evident OBS is much more capable than PPA.

This is not the issue at hand. The matter of availability or not due to patent incumbency was a misdirection you tried to throw a couple of posts back. We can discuss how OpenSuse and Ubuntu both handle this scenario if you wish through but it's not related to your above attack on Ubuntu.

It is a good manner to read the whole discussion, before you start arguing from the middle. The whole flame started many pages ago, when somebody claimed Fedora, Opensuse and other distributions bad, unusable, ugly, with wrong tools etc, while god blessed ubuntu is great. Everything followed was only opposition, showing that ubuntu has its shortcomings too, and it can not be generally called superior. Everything followed are arguments why...

I think this is all I wanted to say....

[blackiwid]

You may not agree with some of the Novells steps. I do not agree with Microsoft pact either. But You should see how many work Novell and RedHat contributed and still contribute do Opensource.

Companies like Canonical are far more evil than Novell:

http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3904526_1/Ubuntu-Canonical-Wallow-in-Muddy-Waters-with-Contributors-Agreements.htm

Canonical contributes almost nothing, and its own Ubuntu centric projects rape the spirit of Opensource.

you do forget the distribution they do not contribute nothing they contribute their distribution, thats their job to offer a good distribution, that is a contribution itself. I don?t like some of there stuff not too, dont get me wrong, I dont like ubuntu-one and stuff like that and some other decitions, I don?t say ubuntu is the best and most ethic distribution, and I do like that other make stuff mostly redhat guys.
But thats no reason to change to a worse distribution which makes deals with ms. Most of the distribution of novell did suck, kde-stuff, radeonhd, xgl. They try to make stuff that is not wanted. They should focus to not make always their own stuff.

But ok better than make nothing, but at least the ubuntu distro is more usable even if ubuntu guys benefit from the good pre work of debian, they do here a better job. Mainly they also stay more close to upstream and standards in the free world then most others.

[BlackStar]

You would better tell us, exactly what bad did opensuse to opensource community...

Novell has created the evil Mono .Net Microsoft trojan. Plus, Miguel. Plus, 892 Linux-related patents.

Funny I read about evil Novell here and there, but the reality is, even such ugly company like Microsoft contributed more to the opensource than Canonical

Canonical created Ubuntu, the first and only usable Linux distribution with appeal to non-hackers.

[devius]

This has nothing to do with the OP, but it's related to the subject of installing software that was brought up a few posts ago. There's an interesting article that talks about the different major distros coming together to improve the finding and installing of software: http://www.muktware.com/a/1/4/26/2011/709

[next9]

you do forget the distribution they do not contribute nothing they contribute their distribution, thats their job to offer a good distribution, that is a contribution itself. I don?t like some of there stuff not too, dont get me wrong, I dont like ubuntu-one and stuff like that and some other decitions, I don?t say ubuntu is the best and most ethic distribution, and I do like that other make stuff mostly redhat guys.

Nobody benefit from such a "contribution" except Ubuntu. I agree they had some minor projects accepted by wide community, but they usually produce thing nobody want to use (I know that for example Ubuntu command-not-founf utility was rather rewritten from scratch by others, instead of accepting bloated original), or thing nobody want to contribute because of dirty copyright conditions. If Ubuntu disappears in a moment, nobody from wide community - Fedora, RedHat, Opensuse, and many others - will notice. Only average Joe using ubuntu could be hit by this. No developers.

But thats no reason to change to a worse distribution which makes deals with ms. Most of the distribution of novell did suck, kde-stuff, radeonhd, xgl. They try to make stuff that is not wanted. They should focus to not make always their own stuff.

Well, Novell did MS-Novell deal. Not Opensuse, which is independent community project. I do not know, whether you understand this, but Novell-Opensuse relationship is very different from Canonical-Ubuntu relationship where Shuttleworth and Canonical are dictators. And I think it is fair to see everything Novell did, not only to choose one or two controversial steps. Novell is in fact contributor no 2. among Linux vendors. Most of the contributions are general contributions into general projects.

The situation about KDE is way different you described. Novell has nothing to do with KDE, because Novell push GNOME as a default desktop. Novell just pays some developers to work on KDE, because Opensuse is KDE distribution. In fact thi means Novell->SUSE->Opensuse are biggest supporters of KDE. This is very good example of how independent Opensuse really is, while it has different priorities than Novell. Vast majority of Opensuse users use KDE.

XGL was the first. built in AIGLX came far way later. So I do not understand what did novell wrogn with XGL.

But ok better than make nothing, but at least the ubuntu distro is more usable even if ubuntu guys benefit from the good pre work of debian, they do here a better job. Mainly they also stay more close to upstream and standards in the free world then most others.

Good for you. I do not think Ubuntu is usable. In my opinion, it is broken. And I am not alone. I accept your opinion, nut I refuse it as a general fact.

[next9]

Novell has created the evil Mono .Net Microsoft trojan. Plus, Miguel. Plus, 892 Linux-related patents.

I like this argument so much, because it gives me the best ammunition. How do you like Canonical's approach? They really like mono, they support mono, they had many mono advocates employed in Canonical. They ship mono by default, they displace standard applications with mono derived on their installation CD. Where is you critics now? heh?

Let me give a notice to you, that Opensuse even does not install mono by default! So why is opensuse worse than ubuntu, when ubuntu - according to your standards - act worse than opensuse?

As far as I know, Novell did not created Mono. All this Mono+Icaza stuff was added to Novell while company called Ximian was bought.

Canonical created Ubuntu, the first and only usable Linux distribution with appeal to non-hackers.

That's subjective. Same applied to many distributions (like Mandrake) in past. The only thing Canonical did, is marketing. Canonical in fact is marketing company.

I would like to emphasis here, that Ubuntu is not vital project today, because it works on credit of Shuttleworth money. There are no other resources behind it. There is no other such project without sustainable development. Canonicals model is not sustainable. It is not comparable neither with Debian style projects, neither with Opensuse/Fedora style projects. So how can ubuntu bring anything?