Page 10 of 17 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 168

Thread: Ubuntu's Mir Moves Ahead With Unity 8 Interface

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Come on, tell me how USA shuts down internet globally. This should be fun.

    By shutting down the root DNS servers; the US is one of six countries who have this ability. Wouldn't kill the internet per se, but with the master lookup tables gone, translating addresses to ip's would be impossible to accomplish, effectively killing the Internet.

    So it is quite "doable", even if it isn't in the US's best interests to do.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDF420 View Post
    Its possible if they use their world wide military bases and launch a simultaneous attack on the global pipelines under the sea.They could then very easily take out 99.9% of the net
    Yes - and if they launch all their nuclear missiles, all life on earth can come to an end. We can all think of doomsday scenarios which COULD happen, but it doesn't mean they will.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Yes, the Internet still works today - because nobody is seriously attempting taking it down.
    DNS servers get their data from other DNS servers, so if you bring down the root DNS servers, then after cache expires whole Internet is down.

    Yeah, we can use namecoin, but less than 0.1% have ever heard of namecoin, and almost nobody know what it is or how to set it up.

    If someone broke the DNS of the Internet, then the Internet would be practically down for 99% users.
    Yeah if the DNS goes down, then most people will be crying to their ISP's, who will do all they can to get a replacement system online. At that point, namecoin, tor, darknet, irc, etc. would all still be working - none of them really need DNS to function. It would be a global crisis, but these already existing, robust infrastructures could be used to build a new global DNS system. We could all move to use namecoin as our new DNS. That'd be kind of awesome actually. In any case I'm fairly certain the problem would get solved, because there would be so much financial incentive to solve it that it would be amazing if it didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    I was saying that the US can take down the internet in their own country and other countries won't do anything about it. You made it look like the other countries would attack america if they would take down the internet because of gross violation of the rights of the people. All I was saying was that the governments in each country could take down the internet in their respective countries. Not that the US will take it down in the whole world.

    Also I was saying exactly that: they aren't going to do it because it's much better to give people illusion of control. For example your idea that internet protests change the real world. There is power in the internet, but much smaller than you think.
    It's not my problem if you don't understand what is being discussed, or assume things that haven't been said. I stated pretty clearly what I was talking about. I stated very clearly that the US could not shut down global internet on its own. It's you who started extrapolating that to something else.

    Also, the internet is much more powerful than you think. Have you ever heard the phrase "information is power"? Read some Sun Tzu. All the greatest military geniuses have known for centuries that simple fact: who controls knowledge, controls how people think, and thus, controls how they act. Who controls knowledge controls everything. And the internet is a flood, nay, a tsunami of information and knowledge. Do you think corporations spend billions on PR-campaigns just for fun? Just because they like to maintain a reputation? No, they do it because they know that their reputation and image translates directly into financial assets. Do you think corporations pay huge sums to people to utilize facespace and other social media to spread PR(opaganda)? It's because the public opinion has power.

    SOPA and PIPA got repealed because people took action and spread the word. ACTA, the same. And you sit on your high horse and keep condescendingly talking about "keyboard warriors" and whatever - maybe you feel so powerless yourself, or maybe you're too lazy to actually take action to influence things, and you want to convince yourself that it's ok because no one else can have any influence on anything either. Maybe you like to push others down to pull yourself up. But hey, keep on worshiping your corporations, keep on thinking that if you kiss enough corporate ass some slivers of their wealth and glory will eventually trickle down to you - meanwhile, those of us with some backbone are making things happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Well we reached the conclusion that Ubuntu will get even better and that it dominates the linux world on the desktop without a question while haters gonna hate so we went on other topics.
    Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds, I see.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    More ad hominem. Not one of you actually argued why Ubuntu is bad. All you said was that Canonical is evil and gave absolutely no rational reasoning for why they are so evil. You just said that they somehow hurt the linux 'ecosystem'. It's more of a religion for you based on beliefs than rational behavior.
    You're pretty good at ignoring things said directly to you. Is the cognitive dissonance too much to bear?

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    ...the fact is that the mission of Ubuntu is to migrate people from Windows to Ubuntu in as large percent as possible.
    Yes, and that's so lame. Ubuntu has gained a little advantage in popularity over other distros merely because it's an attention whore. Fedora, Debian, Arch and other non-user-friendliness-oriented distributions (read non-attention whores) are almost as known as Ubuntu, yet they don't carry a bunch nonsense users; fame is not worth the cost. Yet, to be realistic, Winbugs and Mac OShit will probably dominate desktops forever, as long as they are the only options people see showcased in stores.

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    Usually the first distro that is used when switching from Windows is Ubuntu not Arch or whatever obscure distro you want to point out and most people remain on Ubuntu since it works.
    I'm grateful that wasn't my case, I migrated directly from Win NT to Arch GNU/Linux. Easy, pleasant and educative experience. Now when I have to use Ubuntu in someone's else computer I realise that user-centered distros like Arch, Gentoo and maybe Slackware are actually the most comprehensible ones, with the very best documentation and forums. Exposing and teaching the system to its users isn't obscure, that's rather illumination whereas Ubuntu, Mint and the likes philosophy is treating all users as if they were complete dumbs (wishing they remain that way) and bloating your system with preinstalled filler you'll never use calling it "added value". THAT means obscurity. Not kidding, Arch installation is super easy; it may take a bit though, however, after you get it running as you want it to run you end up with a killer machine which is going to teach you more in a month of use than any other distro in a decade.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    By shutting down the root DNS servers; the US is one of six countries who have this ability. Wouldn't kill the internet per se, but with the master lookup tables gone, translating addresses to ip's would be impossible to accomplish, effectively killing the Internet.

    So it is quite "doable", even if it isn't in the US's best interests to do.
    No single country has the ability to shut down all root DNS servers, because there are a lot of them: http://www.root-servers.org/ Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business. And if they were somehow forced out of business, we still have NetNod, RIPE NCC etc. who would jump at the opportunity to take over the vacant niche. So no, no individual country can shut down the root DNS servers, and thus the internet.

    Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Now, ICANN haz RIPE cheezburger?
    Oh no you didn't...

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Most big providers are headquartered in the US, yes, but their actual servers are not in the US. So if there are laws that forbid DNS servers from running in the US, it still won't stop all of the rest. ICANN and co. would be just silly to not continue operating outside the US, because they would otherwise be out of business.
    Who do you think runs ICANN? Hint: it starts with "US" and ends with "Government"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

    1. Spun off from US Government
    2. Located in US territory
    3. Answers to US Government no matter what (US Department of Commerce)
    4. Doesn't manage the root zones directly:

    In July 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated an earlier statement[17] that it has "no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN".
    ICANN is nothing more than a puppet organization of the United States to give the appearance of an independent organization running the zones, but it's still very much under the United State's control.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IsacDaavid View Post
    Yes, and that's so lame. Ubuntu has gained a little advantage in popularity over other distros merely because it's an attention whore. Fedora, Debian, Arch and other non-user-friendliness-oriented distributions (read non-attention whores) are almost as known as Ubuntu, yet they don't carry a bunch nonsense users; fame is not worth the cost. Yet, to be realistic, Winbugs and Mac OShit will probably dominate desktops forever, as long as they are the only options people see showcased in stores.



    I'm grateful that wasn't my case, I migrated directly from Win NT to Arch GNU/Linux. Easy, pleasant and educative experience. Now when I have to use Ubuntu in someone's else computer I realise that user-centered distros like Arch, Gentoo and maybe Slackware are actually the most comprehensible ones, with the very best documentation and forums. Exposing and teaching the system to its users isn't obscure, that's rather illumination whereas Ubuntu, Mint and the likes philosophy is treating all users as if they were complete dumbs (wishing they remain that way) and bloating your system with preinstalled filler you'll never use calling it "added value". THAT means obscurity. Not kidding, Arch installation is super easy; it may take a bit though, however, after you get it running as you want it to run you end up with a killer machine which is going to teach you more in a month of use than any other distro in a decade.
    Obscurity? Let's not change our SSH ports so that our SSH servers get bruteforced by bots!

    Bloat? Is it too hard to use "sudo apt-get remove" and "sudo apt-get install"?

    Easy to install? I've been using Ubuntu then Xubuntu for 3.5 years or so (and never had any issues), I can't even install Arch... Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.
    Last edited by Calinou; 05-14-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    More ad hominem. Not one of you actually argued why Ubuntu is bad. All you said was that Canonical is evil and gave absolutely no rational reasoning for why they are so evil. You just said that they somehow hurt the linux 'ecosystem'. It's more of a religion for you based on beliefs than rational behavior.
    I didn't say Canonical was evil, bad or hurting the ecosystem - so i don't owe you anything. :\ ~ you do need to learn how to read and who you are responding to though ~ because you just claimed I said a bunch of stuff that i didn't. So no, there is no 'religious belief' on my part, over rationality... Instead, you are just making up shit and/or confusing two different people - either way, you're not only incompetent, but totally impotent.

    but just to clarify; I don't think Canonical is 'evil'. Personally, i find that definition to be laughable. I also agree that if you're going to call a company 'bad' - we need some clear examples. Now, that being said - i personally find Canonical to be a mixed-bag. (some good traits, some bad ones, in regards to the larger linux community / free software).

    but a few examples over the years of things that annoy me about Canonical;

    1. Spreading misinfomation and/or claiming credit for things which they had little to do with (or nothing at all); A few examples;

    - Mark Shuttleworth claiming credit for things like 6month cycle (total obvious lie to anyone familiar with linux at the time)
    - RHEL vs. Ubuntu in enterprise computing. (he did not make the distinction between gratis ubuntu in stats ~ which means he was essentially comparing apples to oranges, misrepresenting statistics in order to bolster Canonical/Ubutnu's credibility in the I.T world... absolute BS on Mark's part.)
    - Claiming Unity existed before GS. (Unity isn't UNR and mark was claiming innovation, where there wasn't any).
    - Wayland FUD from ubuntu/Canonical developers.

    2. very low contributions to upstream projects, in which Ubuntu relies on... no surprise there. Even worse though, ubuntu/canonical tend to abuse some of these projects to made themselves 'appear' to have done more development than they have, or they try to do things like take money out of one project (gnome) and shuffle it into their own pockets; like they wanted to do with Banshee music player in 2011. Which is hilarious being as Gnome is a *non-profit organization*, while Canonical is a for profit company (who probably don't make much money at all, but instead try to steal any penny they can, again, from a non-profit organization...pretty pathetic stuff on Canonical's part).

    3. Mark Shuttleworth was NOT honest or open with his objectives (monetization plans) for Ubuntu to begin with....and if you were around (in the linux community) when Ubuntu first came onto the scene (which i don't think you were), you would get what i am talking about. They presented themselves much differently, than today. (at least RH was always honest about their goals and are heavy contributors, unlike canonical).

    4. Ubuntu ships spyware *enabled* by default, for monetary purposes ~ it wouldn't be so bad (arguably), if it was an 'opt-in' situation. but it's not - it's the other way around.

    5. Re-inventing the wheel and/or fragmentation. ie t:hings like Bazaar or Mir (Wayland > Mir , Git > Bazaar).

    I could think of more reasons/examples why some people aren't Canonical fans, but i don't want to put much time into this... and i think a few examples off the top of my head is enough to show why some people think Canonical is a sh*tty company, largely just out to exploit the larger community (whom they wouldn't exist without) to pick a profit.

    Personally, i have no problems with Canonical making money at all... But i do have a problem with their business practices of being deceptive, inconsistent, not being HEAVY contributors to software from which they completely rely on, etc...

    for me, personally - at the end of the day, it doesn't matter all that much, since i would never invest any of my own income into Canonical or Ubuntu... I don't particularly like their software, nor their OS and generally, i don't like their shadiness either... Luckily though, I have that choice though. BUT if i didn't, then I doubt that i would even be using Linux (at all) on my desktop, if it was an Ubuntu mono-culture.
    Last edited by ninez; 05-14-2013 at 05:09 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    Obscurity? Let's not change our SSH ports so that our SSH servers get bruteforced by bots!

    Bloat? Is it too hard to use "sudo apt-get remove" and "sudo apt-get install"?

    Easy to install? I've been using Ubuntu then Xubuntu for 3.5 years or so (and never had any issues), I can't even install Arch... Also, I can install a *buntu in less than 30 minutes. Life's too short to spend hours on an OS install.
    I installed my archlinux, in a less of one hour , onlye need to search a easy HOWTO, and go

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •