I would argue that this is in fact a case of the GP needing to write more clearly and not assume everyone can follow his assumptions.
And you need to learn how to not insult people's language skills. It's rather rude.
*(computer expert) ^ (knows Unix tools) ^ (doesn't even get apt-get terminology right) ^ (apt-get doesn't work anywhere)
Hmm...maybe those last 2 are somehow related.
LMDE is a bad example; it's the bleeding-edge version of Mint. I can't even remember the last time apt-get upgrade (update is actually the command that fetches the package list) screwed me on mainstream Ubuntu or Mint.
In other news, Windows users don't like Gentoo either (although that's a hyperbolic comparison).
actively uses Raspbian, Puppy Linux, Linux Mint DE, and Ubuntu.
You get the same apt-get screwage in Ubuntu and normal Mint? Did you accidentally put a curse on your computer or something?
Unless if this is all a lie and you're just shilling, which I kind of have to consider because of your ACness and the improbability of all your statements being simultaneously true.
(computer expert) ^ (knows Unix tools) ^ (apt-get doesn't work anywhere)
--quiet --quiet --quiet --quiet
So you can have no idea what happened when it explodes partway through?
Yep. My first thought after reading the "just type 'apt-get upgrade'" post was "...and then spend several hours trying to figure out WTF got screwed up in xorg.conf"
(I have no idea what I'm talking about, since I haven't actually tried doing it in a couple of years...)
FTFY
fixing a broken update can, however, be close to rocket science
I once learned the hard way why you should never ever ever ever abort a running apt-get process. Fun times.
Keep in mind that if Apple had continued their previous versioning scheme, we'd be on OS 19 (or OS XIX) by now. The 'X' actually stands for 10, not 'Xtreme' or something.
If you are a Polynesian, perhaps it is a trivial detail. If you live in the area itself, a country bordering one of the principles (eg: Most of Eastern Europe), or a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries (essentially all of Europe, Canada, and the USA),
Your clauses and antecedents* were jammed together a bit squintingly, and I keep hearing lately that Ukraine is supposedly part of NATO, so I went with that interpretation. I took "a country pledged to militarily protect one of those countries" to mean "protect Ukraine" and asked where exactly that pledge was made.
You seem to think that I'm arguing that there's nothing to worry about with this whole situation. That is most assuredly not what I'm saying.
* I assume:
"the area itself" = Ukraine
"one of the principles" = former Russian territories?
Lastly, the point I was making was that "a country pledged to militarily protect [wikipedia.org] one of those countries" DOES NOT mean NATO as you seem to be saying, but rather only Russia, the US, and the UK (China and France gave weaker assurances).
But the solution to that treaty violation is not to leave the Crimeans in a country they no longer want to be part of.
Assuming the results of that referendum with 123% voter turnout is legit. I'm just gonna let you think about that sentence for a minute. (Putin seems to be adept at this maneuver...remember when his popular support totals jumped by 20% overnight, to over 100% total polling the last time he was elected?)
And you're complaining about "forever binding the Ukrainians to Ukraine"? How is NOT violating their border considered a transgression? This is/was a UKRAINIAN province.; why the hell should RUSSIA get to decide where it goes?
And technically, they gave Crimea to Ukraine back in 1954; the Budapest thing was a reaffirmation that the Soviet Oblast borders were to be followed.
the warm and close alliance between The US and Russia up until the 20th century
In other news, up until WWI broke out, Germany was still hoping for an Anglo-German alliance, and up until WWI France and Britain were at each others' throats in almost every war.
Times change. Talking about the tsars, the Soviet Union, and post-Soviet Russia as the same thing is foolishness.
At times of apocalyptic events Russians and Americans stood together.
You mean the events that never would have happened if they weren't on opposite sides? I assume you're referring to the Cold War.
"Most loyal"? Dear lord...have you been *watching* Putin the last few years?
Yeah, I just found that. Apparently the "assurances" don't exactly include mandatory military intervention per se though.
I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of.
You mean except for the part where Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine that they explicitly wouldn't fuck with their borders.
Ohhhh...we had our fingers crossed. Gotcha!
Oops...those quotes were from the actual NATO article. That list of member countries doesn't even have the string "Ukraine" anywhere on the entire page, though.
Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!
