41–50 of 102 posts
Do these distros point to Ubuntu's software center? Making your own distro, but pointing it at Canonical servers would be an issue as well.
Please, not this clown again. > For avoidance of doubt, any comments arguing this point [my point of view] will be replaced with the phrase "Fart fart fart". https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user ( http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey ) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.
Is adding root SSH keys common practice in the hosting world?
It's because 90% of users don't know what they're doing and at some point will ask for support, and they probably won't be able to get the techs access when needed. It sucks for the 10% who are capable and willing to operate their servers independently.
Source: I've worked at hosting companies.
This is Matthew Garrett (mjg59), and he has a hate against the Ubuntu project that goes back several years. The way he works is that he finds something that he interprets as questionable (his words: "it can be interpreted as meaning"), and then starts screaming because he needs ASAP an official reply. The climate-change deniers employ this technique and you get ordinary people questioning the scientists. His employer…
Please, not this clown again. > For avoidance of doubt, any comments arguing this point [my point of view] will be replaced with the phrase "Fart fart fart". https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html
The idea that it's impossible to distribute an Ubuntu-based distribution will surely come as a surprise to Mint.
There is a big difference in basing your distro on Ubuntu, but naming it something else and basing your distro on Ubuntu and still calling it Ubuntu.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Ubuntu images OVH ships (I assume they're the european provider) are bundled with an old, unpatched kernel and you need to install the one from the repos manually. Other than being unpatched/possibly insecure, it has a few features disabled: the last time I managed an OVH instance, it wasn't possible to run docker over their kernel. Of course Canonical doesn't want that image to be called "Ubuntu", and as an user…
FYI, apart from the kernel, OVH's "Ubuntu" image also adds their SSH key to the root user ( http://help.ovh.co.uk/InstallOvhKey ) and pre-installs some monitoring daemon.
I am also running Docker on one of them just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not even being internally consistent. In your first statement you say that he's made it clear that 'nothing' can be done to avoid asking permission. In the second statement you say he's being evasive on the same issue. So, give me a few links of these 'many times', because you're not exactly being the most reliable source yourself.
Canonical are being evasive on the issue. mjg shows that because we cannot be sure of what Canonical believe and what they will put their lawyers towards, we have to ask Canonical's permission to redistribute Ubuntu no matter what we do to it. EDIT: screwed up a name.
You guys will do amazing dances to avoid sticking to a line of reasoning. You'll pan Shuttleworth for not giving you the answers you want, and then turn around and claim he's not representative of Canonical when it suits you. You'll quite happily take MJG's opinion as legally binding fact, but refuse to take Shuttleworth's opinion of MJG misrepresenting and misquoting discussions they've had together. That link above of Shuttleworth's is pretty clear in why he's not interested in talking to MJG and his loaded (in Shuttleworth's opinion) requests.
Save us from the fucking puritans, who have to sling shit at a project that's done more than most at actually putting non-proprietary software into the hands of people all over the world. I donate to the Software Freedom Conservancy, so free software is at least somewhat important to me, but you know what else is important? Not wasting everyone's time and energy nit-picking over shitty, trivial points. Pretending that it's not clear what the IP policy says: remove the trademarks and recompile and you're sorted. MJG's "interpretation" is a "squint hard and look sideways" interpretation - the relevant bit explicitly says "if you are going to associate it with the trademarks". Pretending that they reserve the right to send lawyers after you if you strip the trademarks and don't associate it with the trademark is just fiction.
The sad fucking thing is that all the people with hate-boners about ubuntu and this issue of MJG's actually don't want to use ubuntu. They just say they do to make their case. "Oh, I really want to use your Unity and Mir, but I'll shit all over you on trivialities because Canonical is all NIH on projects like Unity and Mir". It's really dishonest. And it's why, in that link, Shuttleworth is saying that it's a lot of work for Canonical, all for something that the complainers aren't actually going to use.
Disclaimer: I use debian myself. I just get tired of progressives infighting over bullshit.