Do you know the package pacman from debian and the like?
Try it out and you'll see it is impossible to play, it has a serious game problem that is easily fixed. Bug reports have been sitting where they are forever, the game has been made in 1995 and still the fucking bug hasn't been fixed.
So I registered with the cancer that is the launchpad used to access the code maintained by Ubuntu (odd debian doesn't keep it someplace else), ready to finally fix that mess and well it is written in C++.
Yes /prague/, a shitty, buggy game from 1995 that has been present in every default distribution of debian, ubuntu, xubuntu, kubuntu, fedora couldn't be bothered to be done right and in C.
Pacman is not a Debian package. It is a package manager from another GNU/Linux distribution, Arch Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-11 12:02
You are Pacman, and you are supposed to eat all the small dots You are also supposed to keep away from the ghosts
Something about this doesn't sound very reassuring.
>>11
Does Arch Linux even depend on GNU? I thought it was one of the few Linux distributions that supported drop-in alternatives (e.g. BusyBox).
Though if you wanted to go full /g/, you should have called it ``Arch GNU/Linux''. Stallman thinks he gets to decide the names of other people's products this way.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-11 16:37
>>15 Stallman thinks he gets to decide the names of other people's products this way.
Isn't it the same as other people overloading the Linux name to cover cover GNU? RMS isn't asking to call the system GNU, he's asking the system to be GNU plus Linux. The fact is, GNU forms a significant section of a GNU/Linux system until the second that people actually make an alternative happen.
>>16
He thinks GNU is an operating system, even though decades of scientific literature disagree with his definition of what an ``operating system'' is. It's essentially a synonym for kernel.
So yes, rms is deciding facts to suit his own agenda. I know there's an FAQ that hand-waves this, but I rely far more on programs like X then I do GNU.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-12 14:43
>>22
I guess you don't consider ``Windows 7'' an operating system.
>>23
Nah, I respect Microsoft's wish to call it whatever they like. They made it just as Linus Torvalds made Linux or the Arch Linux team made Arch Linux, even if they didn't make each individual component.
What would be stupid is if the IE devs decided Internet Explorer is an operating system, or if the BSD devs said, ``Some of our code is in your TCP/IP stack. We demand you rename your operating system Microsoft Windows with Berkeley TCP/IP.''
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-12 16:19
>>22
So legitimacy of the OS definition is derived from the written word? I wasn't a hacker of RMS's era but I was mentored by a computer pioneer of the 60's and he doesn't consider a kernel in it's own state but as one part of a whole system and has never touched a CS textbook. You may not directly use the GNU system, but I would bet that you do use indirectly as other software in your system does use it. I am assuming you haven't designed your system to avoid the use of GNU AND you have adopted a standard GNU/Linux system.
>>25
The fact is GNU forms a significant and non-trivial portion of a GNU/Linux system. The BSD TCP/IP stack is one part of the whole system. IE is one part of the system and isn't an OS in itself. While it would be quite possible to rewrite IE to be the OS, nobody would consider such an investment to have any practical use.