Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical's Multipass 1.1 Brings Proxy Support, Fixes

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by jacob View Post
    No, classic comments for an article about Canonical. No intelligent criticism, just trolling or FUD.
    Calling criticism FUD does not make it any less valid

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
      Neither is hating on canonical, both post valid and objective points.
      Neither are valid or objective. That's a (shared by some) opinion, not a fact.
      Dead-end projects? Yes, a few, but many successful beside these. You can't generalize.
      And how on earth is bugged Canonical stuff objective? I've been using many Canonical stuff along the years and they're certainly not more bugged for me than other apps, distro (at least not on the ones I've used along the years: openSuse, Mandriva, Fedora, Slitaz or Manjaro) or DE (Gnome, XFCE, LXDE, Fluxbox, KDE)..

      For instance, Gnome is ways buggier than Unity in my own little experience. It is a constant struggle and many alt+F2 followed by "r" when it's half unresponsive.
      I can't generalize from my experience and from some others that have said the same but it's enough to disprove the initial statement

      I'm not there either saying Fedora is objectively producing buggy software. Because my case is different than any other and I can't generalize as if it was an objective truth. Which is what I feel like most of the anti-Canonical are doing. And they repeat the same things over and over again instead of just focusing on what they like (and associated topics), not what they hate. Ubuntu users usually don't go all annoying bigots on everything "distro placeholder"-related.

      That's why it's often trolling (not always, for Britoid who can't seem to read properly), people and sepcifically haters on comments sections crave for recognition and attention as they don't get any.
      Last edited by Mez'; 03-05-2020, 09:55 AM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        Calling criticism FUD does not make it any less valid
        When criticism is presented as assertion, fact or objective truth, while it's just opinions that can't be extrapolated as such, and it's repeated ad nauseam on every topic related, it becomes FUD or just plain hate. Any way you look at it.

        If said criticism was presented as an opinion with strong justification, then it becomes a positive and needed counter-balance. Problem is, I don't see that much.

        One bad move and the 10 good ones in parallel are forgotten within a huge bashing. I don't get it. I don't even like Canonical that much but some of their haters are such zealots without any kind of objectivity that they make me want to defend it.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Mez' View Post
          Neither are valid or objective. That's a (shared by some) opinion, not a fact.
          Your disbelief does not make it any less real.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Mez' View Post
            When criticism is presented as assertion, fact or objective truth, while it's just opinions that can't be extrapolated as such, and it's repeated ad nauseam on every topic related, it becomes FUD or just plain hate. Any way you look at it.
            Truth hurts. FUD or just plain hate is demonstrably false while most of the statements about Canonical/Ubuntu are true, there is some exaggeration perhaps.


            If you want to see trolling about canonical you need to look at posts where someone (me included) hints at them being Microsoft's sockpuppet.

            Comment


            • #26
              As someone who deploys infrastructure for a living, a lot of Canonical's stuff is way ahead the curve, and that shows in terms of adoption on the server space. For instance, Ubuntu's Kubernetes is quite possibly the best way to deploy kubernetes in a non-managed environment (like GKE or EKS on their respective cloud providers).

              Multipass is still too young to be eminently useful, and it is a tool to be used in conjunction with others. What it does however, it does really well.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Mez' View Post
                I never said that.
                It's obvious though that many haters in here are coming in numbers to thrash anything Canonical/Ubuntu whenever they see an article. Canonical sympathizer (or tolerant towards them) don't go and bother every one on a Fedora/Arch/other article. Which shows that the frustration is one-sided.

                Most of the time there is little argumentation but trolling for the sake of it. Lots of common places, intolerance towards others' preferences, and a tendency to want to put forward their distro, DE, whatever as the best there is in the entire universe. Not many people listen to them I reckon. They need the audience.

                Some can justify themselves and usually they're the more measured ones, and yet the ones that can lead the discussion further. But they're the rare bird.
                I partially agree with you, but have you ever wondered why? Let's also say that Canonical has never done anything to be "nice" to the echoes of the Gnu / linux "community", on the contrary it seems that they do everything to be unpleasant.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  Calling criticism FUD does not make it any less valid
                  No, but invalid criticism doesn't magically become valid when its author whines about FUD.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by jacob View Post
                    No, but invalid criticism doesn't magically become valid when its author whines about FUD.
                    The only ones whining about FUD are the fanbois here.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Britoid View Post

                      Red Hat and "neckbeards" don't develop software under license agreements that allow them to make proptieary copies or pushes vendor lock in.
                      You do understand that the GPL does not apply to the owner, right? So unless you're saying that Red Hat never releases its own software, your statement is false. I don't know the RHEL policy for hosting third-party patches, but personally, I would never want to allow contributions if it meant that I lost all my rights. If I do 99.5% of the work, I made the decisions and not random strangers.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X