Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series) book.
Happy reading Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Using BusyBox (Digital Short Cut) (Pearson Open Source Software Development Series) Pocket Guide.
So my question is why is GNU being removed? The applicable guidelines and policies are:. For example a "common" name for a tsunami is "tidal wave" this term being less often used for the tides-related tidal bore. For this reason, the Tidal wave page is a disambiguation page, with links to the two other pages, and not a page giving details about either tsunami or tidal bore.
Point 5 is enough: This article must be renamed "Linux operating system " or similar. Point 4 is clear: "Linux disambiguation " will be moved to "Linux". Point 1 nearly makes the other points superfluous! The article on what all agree is properly called "Linux", will remain at "Linux kernel " as per rule 5. Wikipedia content guidelines are very clear. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different article pages which could, in principle, have the same title.
Paul Beardsell is right. Now only links to the word linux are given. Otherwise another solution could be to completely edit the Linux page so it only describes the kernel linux. As written now it fails to conform to a neutral point of view by using the word linux to describe the entire OS. I intend to implement WP guidelines and policy see 1 thru 5 above. This page will become "Linux operating system", "Linux disambiguation " will become "Linux".
That last point is so disingenuous and self-serving as to provoke ridicule. You did the brute force mass edits. That deserves sanction! The various uses of the word Linux are nuanced and are sometimes controversial. You do not improve anything by enforcing consistency, robotically.
No, you lose meaning and precision. Your numbering 1 thru 5 does in your supposed rebuttals to my point 1 thru 5 cannot correspond numbered point by numbered point, or do they? But in reference to your points:. So your point vanishes into thin air. Let's just agree that never before in the world of software has so much offense been caused or, at least, taken. I certainly can't see any contradiction of my point 4. Perhaps you think I am saying something else? You've conceded this point?
The rule could not be clearer. We cannot use "Linux" as the name of this article as it conflicts with the name of another thing, the Linux kernel. Case closed! But, WTF, I continue:. It's English. Consider: "Of the well accepted proposals two were contradictory. Now, however strong or weak your other arguments, admit you're wrong here. The guideline reads: "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people" my emphasis.
It's unreasonably misleading to continue having an article on "energy" which talks about state of mind or paranormal phenomena or state of physical well-being or the absense of feeling of laziness these are the common meanings - the latter by far the most common. That's why here, too, we're not going to dumb down the encyclopedia. We'll "temper common usage" because the "commonly used term" is misleading. I can rely on either B or C. There is an extended discussion.
The guideline says that should lead us to doubt that there is a primary topic, and to consider disambiguation along the lines I have described. To characterise this as "empty" is but one example of ignoring policy that you don't like. So: It's both Linux operating system and Linux kernel. You've accepted the latter, now accept the former. If you want to change the wording of policy and guidelines this is not the place. As I see it, you've conceded 1 and 5. Your take on 2 is a misunderstanding. We have increasing common ground! June 1 is the day I'm implementing the changes I've detailed.
Perhaps you should involve the Arb Com? Three days to go. Just to make another voice heard: I still think this article needs to be named "Linux", I find the arguments for a move unconvincing. So I don't see any consensus for a move. Someone has set a deadline for a change which it isn't clear has concensus. They have suggested arb com but "Note that Arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while Mediation is normally for disputes about article content. I don't see there are any issues on user conduct to warrant arbitration so this is a content dispute, or rather an anticipated content dispute.
I think b. Mediation needs all parties to want mediation else mediation cabal or committee won't go very far. Ttiotsw talk , 28 May UTC.
So, KDP, are you happy to put my proposed changes to mediation or not? And Red Shoe? What about you? KDP, if the "basic principle" is as you say it is again and again and if it is so bloody easy to understand, and as I am so obviously wrong, you must be prepared to go to mediation? The primary use argument is an important one. I disagree that the use of the word "Linux" refers to "Linux operating system" anywhere near as overwhelmingly as people here have said.
When, popularly, people say Linux, they cannot mean "operating system" as they do not know what term means, most never use that term. Thus falls the primary use argument. Popularly "Linux" is not the operating system. In geek circles "Linux" is also used popularly and loosely. Depending upon context, in geek circles "Linux" can refer to various things:. What do we mean when we say we're going to a Linux conference?
To say we're going to talk about the "Linux operating system" requires a certain sloppy use of the term "operating system". If you have any sympathy with the above at all and how can you not? There is conflict over the meaning of the bareword term "Linux", it can be misleading, the primary topic argument pushed here again and again is far, far weaker in supporting that this article be named "Linux" than some of you are prepared to admit.
Using the "primary use" argument the article "Linux distribution" should be named "Linux". But let's leave "Linux distribution" where it is we know better than to move it to "Linux", and those 5 guidelines I keep on invoking explain we should not do that move. Warren has noted that "Wikipedia generally does not use disambiguation articles to disambiguate between a number of articles that are derivatives of the same subject.
Instead, we create Wikipedia:Summary style articles. We will have main articles on the "Linux kernel" and "Linux operating system"s and "Linux distribution"s and show the whole Linux software hierarchy simply, as an introduction, here. Interesting and telling, isn't it, that this article is not, in Loculzuk's mind, or in the mind of KDP or BradV or Warren see above , an article about Linux, the operating system, but some kind of all-encompassing article for all things Linux with, according to Chris, "sub-articles".
I think perhaps we need to create another sub-article of this "parent" article, alongside Linux kernel and alongside Linux distribution , we'll call it Linux operating system. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that the only thing that makes an OS 'Linux' is the fact that it uses the Linux kernel. I have never said that the Linux 'OS' exists.
And this article doesn't make that claim either - you are the only one trying to do that. The article, as I have said before, covers 'the group of operating systems that make use of the linux kernel'. The thing that makes linux distro's similar is the kernel. Please actually read the article and what I said. There is no such thing as the Linux operating system. There is a group of operating systems that all have one common feature - the linux kernel which are commonly referred to as Linux. Why are you arguing that there is an OS called Linux? I've not seen anyone else argue that.
Also, please make use of the show preview button. Your constant edits to your posts make it difficult to reply. This is what we nearly always mean when we say "Linux operating system". This is what is written about in the various Linux magazines, and on the various Linux web sites. This article has been resisted here.
Where does this necessary article go? Linux plus GNU systems? I am told some would say I am now "informed"! All we can say about the family of operating systems popularly referred to as "Linux" is that they are Linux-containing where "Linux-containing" means that they contain the operating system kernel known formally and correctly as Linux. The article is called "Linux" because that is the popular term for Linux-containing operating systems.
If I attempt to list the common features which might be used by members of the population to identify something as Linux i. That those features are Unix. What is popularly Linux is indistinguishable from many things which I am told and I agree are not Linux. And, we're told by some, that this slot "Linux" in the WP namespace will be reserved for that popular concept, the term's "primary use", so that readers get immediately where they need to be when they type "Linux" into the WP search box. But what they get is a description of something which is indistinguishable from all the other modern Unix-like operating systems out there.
The supposedly popular "Linux" concept which we insist on protecting here, is of something which popularly cannot be distinguished from other non-Linux Unix-like operating systems. What a mishmash we make of our favorite resource, Wikipedia. This should be a disambiguation page so that readers of WP understand that they cannot even tell what is and is not Linux. Or, rather, they can realise that several things are meant by Linux,.
I started by appealing directly to policy only to be dealt the "primary use" by the public trump card. I think I have now shown conclusively that if the PUBLIC has a primary use of the term "Linux" they have no idea to what they refer, and if they do by, for example, us telling them at WP they could not use that information to distinguish Linux-containing operating systems from other modern Unix-like operating systems because they are indistinguishable except for the invisible kernel.
Even if you restrict the population to computer-literate people they still cannot tell. Even many programmers would not care or know whether the system they were working on was BSD, Linux or Solaris. Thus I have attempted to demonstrate that the Linux "primary use" argument fails, which allows us to apply the 5 exceptions to "primary use" I found in the guidelines. I am now back, full circle, at policy. Members of the public, readers of WP, many programmers need to know: Linux is in fact the name of the operating system kernel at the centre of the most popular Unix-like operating systems, and that "Linux" is used as a shorthand way of referring to those operating systems, but that the applications programming environment and the user interfaces are common to almost all of those operating systems and other Unix-like operating systems.
And, by the way, Linux is not shareware. If the article did not already exist, if we did not each already have an established position, I believe we might naturally say that "Linux" needs to be a disambiguation page. Or, possibly, a summary style page. And you would know that by applying policy. Below the above line no attempt is made to address the Breakfast argument. Hence the line. Too much of this talk page is on the name. I think that we are better off discussing somewhere else.
Mike talk , 31 May UTC. But we all know what is meant by the term. What is the acceptable name for that collection of operating systems which contain Linux as its kernel and the software from the GNU Project? We are told that Linux is the name for the set of or any one of the set of Linux-containing operating system.
Some of these, esp in embedded systems, contain little GNU software. So I am not considering them. What other names are there? Just tell me what it is. But do you have any backup for that? I like seeing the innovative use of different desktop environments and different architectures a newer ppc maybe? In a sense you are right, there really is no sense in using CrunchBang when you can load up a minimal Debian install and make it CrunchBang-like IF you know how.
IF you even realize you could create such a thing. You see, you are speaking from the perspective of working with Linux for years, with a deep knowledge of the system and what options there are. It wasn't that long ago I was as green as green can get. Unity was different, nice but just didn't fit. Same thing with the new Gnome and Enlightenment. CrunchBang shown me something quite different than what I had seen so far; shown me there were more alternatives than I had seen.
In its own way, it taught me how to bulid up a Debian install to be what I want. That was the value of Crunchbang. Not that you couldn't do it another way, but to show newbies like me that it can be done. I have to give credit where credit is due, I've always found Synaptic to be fast, thorough and reliable. It took a little time to fully understand how it works years ago , but when you do, it's hard to beat. I've also tried other iterations of PMs Muon, Software Center, insert name de jour here , where they have the voting system, comments, etc, and it's all very pretty, very dumbed down in the hopes of soothing fears of MS refugees, but in those, the tiny jems get hidden by a handful of big names including proprietary, which I tend to steer clear of whenever possible.
I could swear there is one, but even so, n00bs will be scratching their heads. I wonder if the PS5 will be using Power8. Also I note that Nvidia is a member of the openPower foundation, so that could have interesting graphics implications going forward. Like Mint, for desktop end-users, everything they need pretty much "just works". I'm not knocking either upstream project, I understand why they cannot ship certain codecs, etc. You can't "make" open source developers focus their efforts on any particular area. You might try to convince them, but most of them seem to already have their minds made up.
Microsoft can and does make their developers focus on their products, because they're a company whose goal is to making money for their shareholders, and they have paid employees who have to do what they're told to do. With Linux software, on the other hand, there's little monetary incentive, and, by and large, few profit-driven corporations involved. Meaning, it's largely volunteer-driven, by developers who follow their passions. You can't really "fire" a developer when that developer can, by all rights, use your open-source code to do what he or she wants.
It's pretty amazing to me, anyway that there's the amount of focus and organization that there is now. That, for example, a distribution like Debian exists, and it's available totally free of charge. Think: Windows was at version 3. Linux has come a long way in a relatively short amount of time. Linux seems to be doing just fine the way things are. We have different creeds, political affiliations, languages, cultures etc. Hence those who ask why couldn't people just get along and work for a common good obviously haven't read enough of history.
It is just who we are, rejoice in the diversity. It will be dangerous if we allow the big boys to dictate everything. Unless you want to use the entire hard drive of a workstation, a Windows user would prefer to set aside one portion of the disk before loading the installer. Try to make it easier and less worrisome to install Linux. I admit that I don't use it yet , but the fact that there is a Void release for the Raspberry Pi and it doesn't use systemd makes this an option to explore.
I am definitely go to try it on my Pi2 as soon as I receive it. People may not like the MSFT product, but it does overcome these issues - I can 'google' an error message from Windows and get useful info in seconds. Big is sometimes better. Maybe dogs playing cards. I also see the arguments on both sides of the coin and acknowledge the validity of each perspective. But I ultimately come to the same conclusion as the author.
Diversity is a double-edged sword in that forking someone else's project and taking it in a different direction could blaze a trail that many others want to follow, now that they've seen it in action. Want proof? Mint came from Ubuntu, which came from Debian, and each fork essentially a respin of the mother distro in a unique way is more popular than the original.
Both seemed like great ideas or stupid ideas, depending on perspective , but each turned out differently. I believe this argument applies to the software ecosystem as well as the distro macro-ecosystem. Inasmuch as I lack the skills to code, package, etc Pangaea-Lubuntu and XPubuntu allowed me to provide a turnkey drop-in distro for folks who could not or would not be able to follow along with download Debian, install the following packages, make the following changes to wallpapers, icons, etc I will readily acknowledge this does NOT make me a developer and there is nothing "new" in my remixes that would qualify me as one.
In fact, if my remixes somehow navigate the 1-in-a-thousand odds to shoot up the charts, I'll probably have to hand them over to someone with the skills to continue. It is much more likely that, someday, my remixes will die on the vine. And I'm okay with that. This is what drew me to Linux in the first place, in my attempts to break the shackles of dictatorial control that someone else had over MY system.
And when you break it down to the most common denominator, isn't that why MOST of us are Linux users? And if my theory is correct, why do some suggest that our Linux ecosystem should more similarly resemble the monolithic and proprietary system with pre-determined and limited "choices" that we escaped from? Would you just accept what others had decided for you? Would you migrate to another OS that accommodates your vision? Or would you stay put, come up with a "better" idea and fork it?!
Obviously, I never could config correctly many apps because I didn't know how to do it, so using a derivative of Debian I could have a linux debian-based running without problems.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
On the other hand, I'm in accord with do not have one-man-distros or a teen-weekend-experimental-distros, because if these distros disappear from one day to another, a lot of people will remain walking on air. I routinely use specialized distros for specialized tasks. What still drives me up the wall are the many "lightweight" desktops. Sorry, way too many. And, as others have said, taking a mainstream distro, making minor tweaks to it, adding artwork to make it look different is really stretch to call it a distro.
It would make sense to have distro installs that offer three choices: minimalist no added software packages , the max install them all , and a somewhat laborious but comprehensive set install menus to let one pick and choose. And with regards to Linux, it has strongly influenced the community and code we use today. While to outside observers it may look like inefficient and disorganized chaos, at ground level I can tell you that it's actually more like rapid organic growth and evolution.
While experienced admins may scoff at respins which make minimal changes to their parent distro, these are actually important to the ecosystem for at least two reasons. First, because often the developers behind it are learning valuable skills and lessons in the process. Think of it as being like an entry level job for FOSS contributors. Nobody is born with the skills to contribute to the upstream distro they use. Making a spin-off is one way to experiment and learn the skills necessary.
Second, the respins are often inspired by perceived difficulty or omission in the parent distro for accomplishing a certain task. Someone ran up against a barrier and decided to build a bridge to get past it. The thing is, probably people hit that barrier, 60 gave up and turned back, and only one or two built that bridge. But by building that bridge, they ensure that the NEXT people will never have to deal with those same difficulties. In that way, they are helping the people who are currently standing where they one stood themselves. This is noble, but also vital.
A lot of newbie Linux users don't yet have the skills or knowledge to solve all of their own problems, and having these alternative distros helps them to ease in using the Linux and keeps them from turning back while they're still getting their footing. Even when someone has the skills to contribute to an upstream project, they may not want to. They may have a different vision for how something should work.
They may want to try an approach that is experimental and unproven. Forking the project costs the upstream developers nothing, but allows for the exploration of new ideas and strategies which can always be rolled back into the upstream project if it turns out that they work well. There's a certain element of democracy and technocracy in the FOSS world. At one point there were nearly a half-dozen different init systems, but now the major distros are consolidating on one or two based on their technical merits and the size of their communities.
In this way, we keep evolving towards better solutions. Forks and respins are the genetic mutations, and the dying of failed projects or merging of good ideas is the natural selection. FOSS contributors are driven by their passion to solve the problems that they personally face. Trying to treat them as "resources" and direct their work towards specific projects or areas that they're not personally vested in or affected by is like trying to herd cats.
Not only is it near impossible to do, but you'll end up driving many of them away and winning yourself some fresh scratches in the process. Typically FOSS contributors are happy to submit their changes to the upstream project, but if they upstream project doesn't want them, they just fork the project. The think to note, however, is that they were always going to make those changes anyways.
More titles to consider
They are fixing problems for themselves, and making them available to others who have the same problem. Whether or not that work is accepted by the upstream project is often not their concern. But what's also important about this is that while you might see what looks like a lot of parallel development efforts, very rarely are two projects actually re-doing the same work that the other did.
Good developers loath duplication of effort. More often than not, if you see two projects deliver what seem like the same set of changes, they are either implementing them differently usually for some technical reason to satisfy different constraints or design goals or one project simply merged the work of the other.
Developers typically just care that their problem gets solved, not who wrote the code that solves it. If someone else has already crafted a working solution, why re-invent the wheel? So really, none of the work that is being done in FOSS community is really being "wasted". Because even if it's not directly or immediately useful to everyone else, it's a side-effect of how our community innovates, and in the process the developer is becoming more skilled and learning important lessons which will inform their future contributions, which you may directly benefit from.
I almost could mirror the issues Jessie raised.. Diversity in Linux? MicroLinux Enterprise Desktop.. Maybe i need to read abot it again i may have lost the plot on something.. Gentoo and Calculate seem to have taken a bug hit over the weekend.. Gentoo dropped from 34? I have seen this happen on a lot of distros.. Manjaro being one that was up in the top 15 before, then went into feefall for weeks..
A weird one has always been Mageia I travel the world very regularly and have met a lot of Linux users using almost every distro specially in the top 20 but I have never met anyone who uses Mageia Actually specialized task here is a specialized application, isn't it?
Then again, it looks like people are not creating any distros anymore. Maybe, it doesn't appear to be a necessity. Only 5 distros were announced last week in Distrowatch, where one is a commercial distro, another is a book. Maybe one of them could really be used by an ordinary user. BUT is over bloated with apps we do not need,maybe slingcold : 3-Suse,Fedora,Mageia,Centos,Arch why bother 4-Elementary looks good,functions out of the box,some icons are ugly[network] but please some body shoot this Snap app they added and worse cheese won't even work,tons of work to be done,maybe next year,right Daniel?
Between beta3 and final, I noticed there were little changes, except for the installer their portitioner did not work and I managed to pre-partition with Fedora gparted I hope they will have fixed. The only unpleasant things I noticed were two one at install, the other for specialised software : a if one tries to install on an external USB disk, grub default option is on the internal disk maybe it does not need a grub Fedora has given nice default options since years.
Fedora, with its Electronic Lab respin, offers every cross compiler an hobbyist in electronic may need. Same thing applies to debian at least Raspbian.. Arduino's - a popular controller, with an IDE and a compiler- is broken on Mageia I noticed it on mageia4: the same issue is for mageia5 -this could be fixed by downloading and untaring a binary version from Arduino's site, and modifying one's path The good think about open source software is that nobody can control it.
Everybody is allowed to create his own distro. Most of them I would not recommend to anybody, but some emerge as something fantastic. We might just as easily have triple that number, or more. But, it doesn't really do any harm, except gobble bandwidth and USB sticks. As users gain experience and more insight into their own preferences, they usually back off obsessive distrohopping and acquire the savvy to look for something that's actually a better fit for them.
But, distro diversity doesn't mean distro originality, just as having indy restaurants in town does not mean you'll find tasty and original menus at each. Personally, I use the same apps on any distro and would love to see a project that focused on building a modern, stylish, desktop environment I liked that was not tied to QT or GTK or whatever, and did not load up a gig's worth of packages that I never use.
While many of the top distros are just "usable" depending on the user, many of them just fill a small niche'. Mint is to Ubuntu what PCLinuxos is to mandriva. I've settled on Arch , why? I have, on the ready, an Arch cd, Evolution live arch script installer distro , Manjaro, Mint, PcLinuxos, Archbang, and Gparted cds in a pouch ready to show it all off to a new to Linux user..
This is where diversity helps to get the message out there.. Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. Without pulling to together, PC Linux may fade away. Where is the version of Distrowatch for phones and tablet OSs? How many alternatives to iOS and Android are there? Half a dozen, maybe? I was disappointed when Barry Kauler backed away from Puppy to concentrate on other things like mobile devices, but I now realize he was right. I never thought I'd see the day when a tablet with a keyboard would be wildly popular, but the Windows Surface pros have also proved me wrong.
- Advanced Petrophysics: Volume 1: Geology, Porosity, Absolute Permeability, Heterogeneity and Geostatistics!
- THIRD PARTY COMPONENT NOTICES.
- Shopping Cart.
I also worry you people are disinterested in tinkering the older people did when they were younger. The bottom line is, I hope the people who turn away from full distro development, don't turn away entirely. Even small efforts in a big tent distro can can have a great impact for everyone. Extremism in licensing is a major obstruction to sound business models. Giving away all for the sake of marketing leads to failure, especially in a tightening global economy. So, long-term, does mandating monopoly. It may take number theory and socio-economics to come up with viable methods.
At least several "pirates" and a few radical entrepreneurs are attempting to apply clear critical thinking to the question, which is larger than Freed Open-Source Software alone. Anyone can pick up an instrument, not everyone can play. For instance, not every user wants to install the basic Debian system by himself and then have to set the whole thing up to suit his preferences. Maybe they don't know how to do it properly, or maybe they do but can't be bothered to spend the time.
Or, maybe, they are interested in learning but at a gentler pace and curve. So they start with a distro that is quite feature-packed, then slowly acquire the skills after which they may turn to the parent distro and build up their own system. I have no issue with the fact that there is a wide diversity of distros.
As with many things, you have to discern and pick out the good stuff from among the chaff. I also told that he'd not make another LMDE. BUT is over bloated with apps we do not need,maybe slingcold : Actually, its much better to use Xubuntu with its very user friendly main apps. You can still use Slingshot, instead of something "cold. Sure, worthless even trying to remaster it. It better to get rid of the ugly E17 and remaster Bodhi with some Xfce apps. Well, no one really donates That's my impression.
Each new distro tells me that the market leaders are doing something wrong. For example, only a few Ubuntu-derived distros have detected that the Ubuntu fail to recognize that it is color-blind, and end-user ignorant preferring coders to endusers. All the distro reviewers I've seen, did not test the final end-user perspectives, with different target uses in mind: school kids, teenagers, business owners of different types, or specific parts of the general public.
Final end-users will use the operating system with their preferred apps, and preferred settings. I feel that the upstream distro producers Red Hat, Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, etc are failing to read the comments made wthin their own forums, so many downstream users are forced to try coding. The installer was great and it already had an option to install Grub2 as "experimental", but it has worked well.
It worked very well but it lacked some emotion. Very stable, but very few updates. Soon after, I switched to the Cauldron development repositories. It has been working nicely since then as a rolling distro, just some very minor problems once and a while, that get corrected after a few days!!! Not much to bother and to maintain. So there you have it, now you know at least one Mageia happy customer. And even those answers, good as they are haven't made the feelings go away entirely- there is this sense that Linux keeps reinventing the wheel the desktop and never goes on to the cart paying attention to the applications.
That's a little extreme, there ARE apps, but I do have the feeling that they are neglected. But the point that someone who is coding on a desktop might not have the skills to code on Libre Office makes sense. Someone was talking about one-man projects, and that's been a concern of mine from the beginning, when I was first poking through the distros here, looking for an alternative to Windows.
I didn't want to get all comfy with a distro and have it disappear. MEPIS seemed attractive in many ways, but had too much of that one-man feel. Mint started with Clement Lefebvre, but he seems to work hard to include others. But that's where Mint being based on Ubuntu is a good thing- if the Mint project were to fold and I hope it doesn't!
Ubuntu MATE seems to be the current likeliest lifeboat When it comes to software projects, hedging your bets seems like a wise thing to do. If you look at the different versions of the Distro you'll see that Mate is done by texstar and all other version were produced by Pinoc. Where would we those with perfectly fine machines, those of us with Raspberry Pi, or Beagles be, huh?
The ones revolve around someone filling an unfilled niche.
The bad ones revolve around personality and politics. The net effect is generally positive; users have options. Having used several distros I find myself gravitating to certain types of distros and DEs. The freedom to create based on other's work is very critical without which things will stagnate. If you choose not to customize your ui then that is your choice. Mint also offers some one of the best user forums to get answers to any issues. Regarding the abundance of distros: it is all good, to a degree. Someone commented on how an end user has customized a top distro to their specs and then released it to the world as their own.
Again this is a choice, stick with the big distros and do your own customizing or go with the tweaked sub-versions. This helps to hone Linux into the best experience possible. You have a choice so make the most of it. If you have a need it can be met by one or more of the distros. Products of this store will be shipped directly from the US to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from the UK to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from China to your country.
Products of this store will be shipped directly from Japan to your country. Products of this store will be shipped directly from Hong Kong to your country. Shop By Category. My Orders. Track Orders. Important Links. Follow Us. App Download. US UK.