PDA

View Full Version : Endless debates about religious derivatives of Ubuntu



Pages : [1] 2 3

Cyraxzz
July 19th, 2006, 05:57 AM
no offence, but i don't see a point in this project of yours.

Christian users can simply install those programs after they install the whole Operating System.

henriquemaia
July 19th, 2006, 06:00 AM
no offence, but i don't see a point in this project of yours.

Christian users can simply install those programs after they install the whole Operating System.

It's about choice. And, probably, to have a nicer Ubuntu version to present to Christian computer users.

That's a neat idea.

mhancoc7
July 19th, 2006, 06:03 AM
no offence, but i don't see a point in this project of yours.

Christian users can simply install those programs after they install the whole Operating System.

Yes, I know and I expected someone to feel this way. In my opinion there are many Christians who simply do not realize that there are Christian Linux programs. I feel like having a real Christian Linux distro available will only bring more users to Linux and to Ubuntu. That is just my opinion though.

God Bless, Jereme

aysiu
July 19th, 2006, 06:35 AM
no offence, but i don't see a point in this project of yours.

Christian users can simply install those programs after they install the whole Operating System.
I don't see the point of Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu either. After all, you can just install Ubuntu and add educational applications, right?

siimo
July 19th, 2006, 11:48 PM
The problem is WHERE do you stop making all these EDITIONS. isn't desktop environment enough?

P.S. i propose a Ubuntu "Terrorist Edition" CD loaded with all the missile launching and bomb detonate control programs! ;)

matthew
July 20th, 2006, 12:02 AM
I would like to encourage people to either contribute something useful to the conversation or move on. If the project doesn't interest you that's okay. There are lots more out there. You don't have to rain on someone else's parade.

Back to the actual topic...

T700
July 20th, 2006, 02:41 AM
Regarding the people who think it is foolish to create a distro slanted toward a particular group, I think you're wrong. Slanting toward a target audience is a very common technique in marketing. When my company markets to the military, we emphasize and customize our software for their needs. When we sell it to the educational clients, we play up the things that are important to universities.

If Christians, Buddhist, Muslims, Pawnbrokers, Car Dealers, Doctors, or even Terrorists, decide to create a packaging of Ubuntu that is loaded with things they need, I think it makes perfect sense. I may not agree with the goals of a given group, but that's part of the beauty of open source--I don't have to!

Paul

mhancoc7
July 20th, 2006, 02:44 AM
I fully support the idea of having a Christian Edition of Ubuntu but I think that giving a section of the forums is a bad idea. I can see too many people getting anoyed that there are not other sections for other religions. It seems like it would be opening a Pandoras Box.

You might be right. The last thing I want to do is cause trouble. I would love to have a forum section for this project, but I see what you are saying. The goal of this project is to reach out towards Christians and bring them into the linux community not to seperate from it.
Thanks for your comments, Jereme


Regarding the people who think it is foolish to create a distro slanted toward a particular group, I think you're wrong. Slanting toward a target audience is a very common technique in marketing. When my company markets to the military, we emphasize and customize our software for their needs. When we sell it to the educational clients, we play up the things that are important to universities.

If Christians, Buddhist, Muslims, Pawnbrokers, Car Dealers, Doctors, or even Terrorists, decide to create a packaging of Ubuntu that is loaded with things they need, I think it makes perfect sense. I may not agree with the goals of a given group, but that's part of the beauty of open source--I don't have to!

Paul

Well said!

Thanks, Jereme

Icon41
July 20th, 2006, 07:11 PM
I don't think bringing regligion in this is necessary, they can trick out there box with religious stuff I don't care but to make a OS addon just for christians is just ridiculous.

aysiu
July 20th, 2006, 07:19 PM
I don't think bringing regligion in this is necessary, they can trick out there box with religious stuff I don't care but to make a OS addon just for christians is just ridiculous.
I think you're misunderstanding the situation--there is no "they." Canonical and Ubuntu are not involved in this project. It's one person's idea, and people are just trying to help that one person implement it as a side project to target a particular group (Christians).

asplode
July 22nd, 2006, 11:58 PM
I doubt it matters much in the entire scheme of things. The word "christian" alone might sway some people, being that, especially here in bible belt of the united states, the sunday christians talk the bejeezus out of the talk, and like to keep up appearances, being the shallow naive folks that they are.

As long as ubuntu management is alright with them using the name, I don't really see a problem. Don't want Ubuntu - Christian Edition? Don't download it.

Now where's my hedonistic ubuntu?

costoa
August 8th, 2006, 10:59 PM
I'm sorry but I really need to voice my opinion about this:

- A distro fork just doesn't make sense. A much easier way is to package whatever apps, artwork, reference material, etc, that are needed for your project and let users add them as desired.
- The forked version is much more susceptible to the introduction of security flaws like "man in middle" attacks and compromised public keys. Many christians would justify "rooting" another's machine if it meant "saving" them from porn and sites (i.e.: by using privoxy to block) that do not agree with the rooter's christian point of view.
- Many christians use their religion as a tool of oppression and to financially enrich themselves.
- In many parts of the world christians and christianity are seen as a virus who's main goal is to replace the indigenous nonchristian religion by whatever means available like the "baseball baptisms" ("Want to play baseball with us? You need to be baptized first") in South America.
- There is no god or gods. There isn't. There has never, ever been one shred of proof of any deity. Most likely the idea of "jesus" is also a myth and no such person ever lived. They're myths that have gone horribly, horribly wrong that at times have promoted zealots and the mentally unbalanced into positions of power. Just look at President Bush and US Senator Santorum (R-PA).
- A forked version is much more likely to confuse some people into thinking that Ubuntu "prefers" christianity over other religions.
- A christian fork is the quickest way to get any version Ubuntu banned in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries. One fatwa, the ban is a done deal and we all lose.

IMO do what you want but please consider building your distro off the Debian base instead of using the fine work of the Ubuntu team and the fine "Ubuntu Linux" name to promote your myths. I truly do not mean to offend you. I truly don't. I believe in religious freedom and the right to be free from religion for all people.

Maybe many of the comments made in this thread should serve as a warning that using the Ubuntu name to promote any religion will drive a wedge into an otherwise solid community.

This whole thread seems like it might belong in the Backyard. Some would say your posting is a thinly veiled attempt to proselytize due to the lack of any meaningful technical questions.

costoa
(Donning fireproof suit ...)

costoa
August 8th, 2006, 11:15 PM
sigh... why must we put religion into this whole thing? let them install these programs after they choose what they want...
In reply Redcard said:

We've already had this discussion. Please leave, NewWaves. This topic is about the technical issues in the design of this release.

"Please leave"? Dude, that's just rude and hardly "christian". Maybe you should apologize? WWJD?

Redcard
August 9th, 2006, 12:19 AM
In reply Redcard said:


"Please leave"? Dude, that's just rude and hardly "christian". Maybe you should apologize? WWJD?

First off, I'm not christian.

Second off, Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple by FORCE because they did not belong. Similarly, you don't belong in this thread, a thread discussing the technical aspects of a version of Ubuntu that Canonical already gave their blessing to. Jesus would tell you to go screw yourself but he does not seem to be monitoring this thread.

Get LOST. The admins have told you trollers to get out. The thread originator has told you to. NOW, I'm telling you too. Seriously, mods, can we start to get some bans and suspensions here?

costoa
August 9th, 2006, 12:47 AM
First off, I'm not christian.

Second off, Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple by FORCE because they did not belong. Similarly, you don't belong in this thread, a thread discussing the technical aspects of a version of Ubuntu that Canonical already gave their blessing to. Jesus would tell you to go screw yourself but he does not seem to be monitoring this thread.

Get LOST. The admins have told you trollers to get out. The thread originator has told you to. NOW, I'm telling you too. Seriously, mods, can we start to get some bans and suspensions here?

Your post has been reported as harassing and it is most offensive I have ever read on ubuntuforums.org. Your comments are in juxtaposition to the Ubuntu philosophy. This site has been a great resource and a friendly place up to now.

Amazing, just amazing.

Redcard
August 9th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Your post has been reported as harassing and it is most offensive I have ever read on ubuntuforums.org. Your comments are in juxtaposition to the Ubuntu philosophy. This site has been a great resource and a friendly place up to now.

Amazing, just amazing.


And again, as I repeat. Various forum moderators and staff have come in to this thread and asked this to cease. The thread was initially split into TWO to avoid this. You can report me as offensive all you want, it has been asked repeatedly that your type of posts cease, and you have ignored the instructions and commands of the forum staff.

In short, sir, I am offensive because we tried the nice nice. Now we're doing it in a way that is less kind and more business like. Your post is nothing more than off topic drivel.

RC

forrestcupp
August 9th, 2006, 01:38 AM
Your post has been reported as harassing and it is most offensive I have ever read on ubuntuforums.org. Your comments are in juxtaposition to the Ubuntu philosophy. This site has been a great resource and a friendly place up to now.

Amazing, just amazing.

You have said some pretty offensive things, yourself, to people who have used their freedom of choice to be Christians. You have the right to your opinion, and so do Christians. There actually have been a lot of posts discussing technical things such as what software to add, graphical suggestions, etc. Most of the posts that are not technical are from people who oppose this project which is their right, but also a view that takes away from a Christian's freedom to use Free software in the way that he/she chooses. If you don't believe in having separate editions of Ubuntu, then maybe you should express your opinion on threads about Kubuntu, Edubuntu, etc. This isn't the only one.

Brockton
August 10th, 2006, 02:42 AM
I for one hope that Canonical doesn't back this "Christbuntu", as it is opening up a very bad can of worms. There's no real need for it, and it would be saying to the world that Canonical aligns itself specifically to Christians. No doubt, then, others will come forward with their own versions and cry foul if Canonical doesn't back them.

Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that?

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 02:54 AM
Why not just make a "meta-package"? You know like "kubuntu-desktop"... It just contains all the directions to download the files and install them.

A metapackage was discussed.. however, the end result is that for mission trips and the like, it would be far more of use for people to have a live cd + install kit that contains all the software necessary. That way, we can distribute this to people who don't require a high speed or simimlar internet connection to obtain the software.

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 03:20 AM
I for one hope that Canonical doesn't back this "Christbuntu", as it is opening up a very bad can of worms. There's no real need for it, and it would be saying to the world that Canonical aligns itself specifically to Christians. No doubt, then, others will come forward with their own versions and cry foul if Canonical doesn't back them.

Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that?

This has been discussed and dismissed, and you are too late in your hopes that Canonical doesn't back this. Apparently they believe in exactly what their philosophy says, that people should be allowed to use this software for whatever purpose they desire.

Freedom isn't about supporting only the things you approve of. Canonical understands how this distribution and release can help others.

Please take all dissent of this outside this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the technical applications, suggestions, and what not of this project that _IS_ _GOING_ _FORWARD_ _WITH_ _PERMISSION_.

Thanks.

Brockton
August 10th, 2006, 03:56 AM
This has been discussed and dismissed, and you are too late in your hopes that Canonical doesn't back this. Apparently they believe in exactly what their philosophy says, that people should be allowed to use this software for whatever purpose they desire.

Freedom isn't about supporting only the things you approve of. Canonical understands how this distribution and release can help others.

Please take all dissent of this outside this thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the technical applications, suggestions, and what not of this project that _IS_ _GOING_ _FORWARD_ _WITH_ _PERMISSION_.

Thanks.

Good good, then I shall use my freedom to stop using ubuntu, since it backs something *I* don't agree with, and consider evil.

I can see this as the start of a very slippery slope for ubuntu.

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 04:39 AM
Good good, then I shall use my freedom to stop using ubuntu, since it backs something *I* don't agree with, and consider evil.

I can see this as the start of a very slippery slope for ubuntu.

Your decision to use or not use Ubuntu is irrelevent. You're not judged by people here for what distribution you use. Neither should these people be judged for the purposes by which they use Ubuntu.

I point you to this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy and suggest that if you are offended by a group of people creating a distribution for churches to use instead of stealing windows and other applications, that you never really had any respect for the Ubuntu philosophy at all.

It seriously bothers me that people are this offended at people's freedom to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. It bothers me that people are okay with Ubuntu being free for use and purpose, but suddenly act oppressed when someone believes differently.

Desmond Tutu, a christian who has done many good deeds, has this to say about Ubuntu:

"A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed."

The Ubuntu software philosophy states:

1. Every computer user should have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.

So I ask you, what are you so threatened about? Because I'll tell you what I'm threatened about. I'm threatened that people like you have your idealistic viewpoints about what Ubuntu means so long as others agree with you. I'm threatened that you can decide that a group of people using Ubuntu as it was intended to be used is using it wrong, and that you feel you can define "evil" and "righteous" uses for something is FREE. What gives you that right?

It is altogether easy to sit here and criticize Christianity, or George Bush, or religion, and then to point and yell that YOU know what Ubuntu is about and that THIS is NOT a proper use of Ubuntu.

You find it improper because you do not share their faith. That, my friend, is the very hatred and injustice that Ubuntu is trying to get around. Not as a linux distribution, but rather, as an ideology that is reshaping south africa today.

I encourage you to have some level of peace with your fellow man. To look beyond your blind hatred of a religion and grasp the greater good of what this could mean to computer users. Freedom.

This serves people. It introduces more users to Ubuntu. It creates a common ground.

I'm sorry that you thought that Ubuntu meant atheism. Or whatever you might have thought it meant. I think it means HUMANITY. NOT humanism, but rather, the seeking of the common ground that defines us all.

No one is forcing you to use this distribution. Nobody says you have to ever comment in this thread, or donate your time or energy to it. What we do say is this: If you TRULY believe in software freedom, and in the spirit of Ubuntu, then you will allow people to make their own choices about the software they use, produce, and distribute.

Otherwise, why are you even here?

nalmeth
August 10th, 2006, 04:53 AM
Noticing very little technical discussion under all the rhetoric. I heard there was another thread for discussing the "validity" of this project, is this true?

Perhaps there is just a better location for this thread, as it is meant for technical discussion, and people usually wander into the Cafe for other purposes. I think this is why people feel they can/should share their 'personal' feelings about the subject.

Any thoughts? I think this is a technical issue :)

mhancoc7
August 10th, 2006, 05:02 AM
Noticing very little technical discussion under all the rhetoric. I heard there was another thread for discussing the "validity" of this project, is this true?

Perhaps there is just a better location for this thread, as it is meant for technical discussion, and people usually wander into the Cafe for other purposes. I think this is why people feel they can/should share their 'personal' feelings about the subject.

Any thoughts? I think this is a technical issue :)

Yes there is the Ubuntu CE Development Forum (http://forums.churchforge.net/index.php?c=7). The great folks at ChurchForge.net (http://www.churchforge.net) have given us the space.

God Bless, Jereme

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 05:06 AM
Noticing very little technical discussion under all the rhetoric. I heard there was another thread for discussing the "validity" of this project, is this true?

Perhaps there is just a better location for this thread, as it is meant for technical discussion, and people usually wander into the Cafe for other purposes. I think this is why people feel they can/should share their 'personal' feelings about the subject.

Any thoughts? I think this is a technical issue :)

Oh, I agree.

I've become very convinced that people are intentionally ignoring the commands and instructions of the moderators (even against the terms of service of this board and the code of conduct for the Ubuntu project as a whole) , in an attempt to get this thread and all discussions about it shut down.

I posted what I posted above because I hope that people will read it and leave this thread alone. It'll be, hopefully, with the moderators help and some well placed bans, the LAST that should need to be said in this thread. These people have been asked to go to the backyard, and begin another thread. If they can keep it civil (they did not last time), it will remain open. They seem to be intent on letting their hatred run free here.

I am sickened when people bang the free software drum hard and long.. and then turn and act like the freedom should come with controls that are based on their own political beliefs.

The funny thing is? I'm not even a christian. I've not been one for a long time because of things that the church did to me. But, by the same account, if I'm not going to let the christians have the freedoms I think all people should have.. what's the point of having the FSF, Ubuntu, or debian?

nalmeth
August 10th, 2006, 05:55 AM
I've become very convinced that people are intentionally ignoring the commands and instructions of the moderators (even against the terms of service of this board and the code of conduct for the Ubuntu project as a whole) , in an attempt to get this thread and all discussions about it shut down.
I wouldn't go that far. I would assume that people wander into the Cafe, read the thread title, and the original post, and immediately hit reply, according to their emotional response to the topic. Granted, some people are persistently coming back and pushing the issue.

These people have been asked to go to the backyard, and begin another thread. If they can keep it civil (they did not last time), it will remain open.
I see, so the thread was locked up due to conduct being broken. Is anyone interested in trying again, in an appropriate and respectful manner, of course? I'm not interested in entering this debate right now, but I think it would be fair to have a place to respectfully discuss this, more than anything in the interest of keeping this thread on topic. Obviously this debate won't stop with mere warnings, and banning is an extreme measure which could only serve to worsen the situation. I think it is only prudent to find a way to allow civilized discussion of the "validity" issue in one thread, and to allow "technical" discussion to go uninterupted, and in the proper section. Perhaps the respectful questioning raised can be merged with the backyard debate, and the technical discussion moved somewhere like the 3rd party projects section, so people looking for non-ubuntu talk won't come across it here. They're only bound to voice their opinion if it is in this section, really.



if I'm not going to let the christians have the freedoms I think all people should have.. what's the point of having the FSF, Ubuntu, or debian?
quite :)

BTW, I'm not a moderator, and not trying to dictate how this should be handled. I'm just throwing this out there as an idea, as the current situation is not working. If my comments are better suited for the Resolution Center, any mod can move them there if they wish.

I just think we need to step back and think this one out

Artificial Intelligence
August 10th, 2006, 06:36 AM
This part have been split from http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=218724

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that? Why not get rid of Edubuntu, then?

Different versions suit different needs. Nothing's stopping you from creating your own version. Live and let live. Your negativity toward this project offers nothing constructive to the Ubuntu community, the Linux community, or the world.

rattlerviper
August 10th, 2006, 09:27 AM
Why not get rid of Edubuntu, then?

Different versions suit different needs. Nothing's stopping you from creating your own version. Live and let live. Your negativity toward this project offers nothing constructive to the Ubuntu community, the Linux community, or the world.

Laziness perhaps? LOL
I really think the arguement is irrelavant. People are here because they either support Free software or the Open Source Philosophy. This issue is definanlty seperating the first from the second! Those that are utterly against this see this as someway being harmful. Those that are for this understand that this is how Open Source is meant to function!

Guess what? I support the Ubuntu Christian Edition and think it is a great idea! Religous philosophy aside, if it can benefit even a few...if it can bring new users to Ubuntu...Wonderful! If it hurts someones feelings they really need to do a self assement. How can someone carry so much anger?
And no, I'm not a Christian.

eXisor
August 10th, 2006, 10:27 AM
Live and let live.

I'm only going to have a problem with this if it suddenly arrives as a critical update on my Ubuntu distro the way WGA did for MS.

If members of another religion or even atheists want to spawn their on distro, they should do so. So say I.

But I would expect these versions to be supported by Canonical too. Ubuntu is not about exclusive agendas.

It would be nice if Canonical expressed this officially.

However this is a potentially slippery slope for Canonical....

The theoretical situation arises: some religions are offensive to other religions, and this may well result in Canonical having to take sides. This would be against the spirit of Ubuntu.

The religion in question (and I am not a adherent) is Satanism.

Would Canonical support a Satanic version of Ubuntu? By the spirit of Ubuntu, and the precedent they have just set, they should.

Edit: I think this is an important issue and I don't want it lost in an anti-christian ubuntu rant, so I'm going to start a new thread.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=233469

Terracotta
August 10th, 2006, 11:45 AM
I point you to this: http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy and suggest that if you are offended by a group of people creating a distribution for churches to use instead of stealing windows and other applications, that you never really had any respect for the Ubuntu philosophy at all.


If someone believes that Christianity is hurting humanity itself, woudln't it be obvious he also thinks that christianity shouldn't be linked to ubuntu?



It seriously bothers me that people are this offended at people's freedom to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. It bothers me that people are okay with Ubuntu being free for use and purpose, but suddenly act oppressed when someone believes differently.


Nobody has ever said he/she is offended by people's freedom to worship or not as they see fit. What some people say is that they shouldn't make themselves more important than they are. Christianity is a part of humanity and is not a segregated group. From what I read nobody would have had a problem with a project like automatix for christianity, it would put religion on the right place. It seriously bothers me that no criticism is allowed what so ever regarding christianity, the only respons people that object get: close your eyes so you don't see it and it won't bother you anymore.



Desmond Tutu, a christian who has done many good deeds, has this to say about Ubuntu:

"A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed."

The Ubuntu software philosophy states:

1. Every computer user should have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2. Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3. Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.


Just like I said above, christianity is a part of the world, not a world on its own. Nobody has ever objected against one of these philosophies either, so there's no reason to drag them in the discussion. The discussion in my point of view is more about the importance christianity gets in ubuntu than that it comes to use/change software. I think either ubuntu CE should have another name and go completely different like mepis does, or become a small project like automatix. Apparently the ubuntu devs disagree and have given their blessings, fine by me enough said.



So I ask you, what are you so threatened about? Because I'll tell you what I'm threatened about. I'm threatened that people like you have your idealistic viewpoints about what Ubuntu means so long as others agree with you. I'm threatened that you can decide that a group of people using Ubuntu as it was intended to be used is using it wrong, and that you feel you can define "evil" and "righteous" uses for something is FREE. What gives you that right?

It is altogether easy to sit here and criticize Christianity, or George Bush, or religion, and then to point and yell that YOU know what Ubuntu is about and that THIS is NOT a proper use of Ubuntu.

You find it improper because you do not share their faith. That, my friend, is the very hatred and injustice that Ubuntu is trying to get around. Not as a linux distribution, but rather, as an ideology that is reshaping south africa today.

I encourage you to have some level of peace with your fellow man. To look beyond your blind hatred of a religion and grasp the greater good of what this could mean to computer users. Freedom.

What has George W Bush junior to do with this?
Nobody has threatened christianity, you feel wrongly threatened because some people want to keep christianity where it belongs and give it the importance it has or should have.



This serves people. It introduces more users to Ubuntu. It creates a common ground.

I'm sorry that you thought that Ubuntu meant atheism. Or whatever you might have thought it meant. I think it means HUMANITY. NOT humanism, but rather, the seeking of the common ground that defines us all.

No one is forcing you to use this distribution. Nobody says you have to ever comment in this thread, or donate your time or energy to it. What we do say is this: If you TRULY believe in software freedom, and in the spirit of Ubuntu, then you will allow people to make their own choices about the software they use, produce, and distribute.

This does not serve people, there are other ways to accomplish what you want.
Ubuntu means humanity, christianity is a part of it, christianity therefor should stay a part of it instead of trying to segregate itself.
Already responded to the forcing part. And again nobody is making it more difficult for someone to use/produce the software someone wants to use/produce. Critisism != forbidding,stopping,forcing to not use something.




Otherwise, why are you even here?

To spend time with people that have a common ground but have different opinions, to learn that ones opinion can be wrong, to learn how to look at something with an open mind but also with a mind that shouldn't be keeping his critisism for himself, as long as it is told in an apropriate non harmfull way. I tried to show the correct respect to every group, perhaps I didn't succeed and I appologise if I was disrespectfull to any body. I for myself don't care that much anymore about the project, I've raised my objections, pointed the things out I wanted to say in the former thread. All I'm gonna do is respons to people who are trying to silence any form of critisism just because they feel threatened by any form of critisism regarding their faith.

TeeAhr1
August 10th, 2006, 04:09 PM
I've gotta say, I disagree with the concept. Not the existance of such a thing, but official support from Canonical, yeah, that rubs me the wrong way. Because, yes, it is playing favorites with religion. And it's not like Edubuntu. Everyone agrees that kids need to learn. It's not a controversial topic (unless you're discussing it with the Taliban). I know a lot of people who would take issue with the idea that "people need Jesus."

It's open source software. If you want it, make it happen. That's your right, and I'm sure not going to be the hypocrite trying to take that away (couldn't if I wanted to, which I don't). Maybe I can round some people with more 133t sk1llz than me and make a Paganbuntu derivitive. We'd all be happy, it'd be great. But to make it officially supported (Christubuntu, Paganbuntu, Islamibuntu, whatever) is, inevitably, taking someone's time away from doing work that would benefit Ubuntu as a whole. That's my problem with it.

I don't mean to come off like a prick here, because I don't think I'm being unreasonable. I completely welcome level-headed discussion of the points and questions I've raised. I've been wrong before, if I am here, please tell me how.

As an aside (as in, I don't want to thread-jack here, if you want to reply, let's open a new thread or do PMs):


however, the end result is that for mission trips and the like
Has it crossed your mind that the whole Christian concept of "evangelism" and "missionaries" may be deeply offensive to pretty much the whole non-Christian world?

kindest regards

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 04:31 PM
I think some people are confused as to what "official support from Canonical" means.

As far as I know, Canonical is not funding this project nor adding it as the fifth option on their homepage (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu... ChristianUbuntu).

"Support" just means that they're allowing it to happen and use the Ubuntu name and I think an altered logo, too. It's a fork made by a Ubuntu user. The decision does not come from Mark Shuttleworth saying, "I think we need a Christian version of this..."

eXisor
August 10th, 2006, 04:33 PM
Has it crossed your mind that the whole Christian concept of "evangelism" and "missionaries" may be deeply offensive to pretty much the whole non-Christian world?

Reminds me of the time an evangelist (can't remember which church) came to my front door.
First question he asked me is 'What religion are you?'.
So I give him my stock 'go away' reply, 'I consider religion to be very personal and private. Wouldn't you agree?'
"Oh yes', he says, shaking his head in agreement. After a few minutes of waiting for the ironic penny to drop, I prompted him.
'Is there anything else I can help you with?'
"What religion are you', he asked.

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 04:39 PM
A number of non-Christians have stepped forward and said something to the effect of, "I'm a non-Christian, but I'm all for this project if it gets more people using Ubuntu."

I'd just like to say I am a Christian, and I'm all for any project that will get more people using Ubuntu. If someone wants to create a SatanistUbuntu or a MormonUbuntu or an AtheistUbuntu or a MuslimUbuntu or a MotorcyclistsUbuntu or a BallerinasUbuntu... go for it. More power to you.

eXisor
August 10th, 2006, 04:42 PM
"Support" just means that they're allowing it to happen and use the Ubuntu name and I think an altered logo, too. It's a fork made by a Ubuntu user. The decision does not come from Mark Shuttleworth saying, "I think we need a Christian version of this..."

If this means that all religious projects will be allowed to happen, can use the ubuntu name, and make an altered logo, then there is no issue or confusion or favouritism.

If any of these allowances are disallowed for another religious project, then the issue will be real and need to be seriously addressed.

Personally I accept the responses I got on this matter and am letting the matter drop. Now.

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 04:42 PM
Well put, Aysiu.

I'm for this project because I don't want anyone.. ever.. telling me that Ubuntu is Free, but that I can't use it for MY purposes because they disagree with those purposes. And if people get adamant against christians, different people can get adamant against gays, against women, and against chocolate milk lovers.

Freedom means Freedom. It doesn't mean Freedom (except where we dont' approve)

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 04:52 PM
This may open up a whole new can of worms, but the only time I could see Canonical not approving a fork is if it's explicitly for something illegal.

I could imagine Canonical not supporting (and I would agree with them): ChildMolestersUbuntu or TerroristBombersUbuntu or EmbezzlersUbuntu.

eXisor
August 10th, 2006, 04:57 PM
@aysiu: Fair enough. Although I do get pretty involved in supporting esoteric freedoms, I'd object to those too. :)

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 04:57 PM
This may open up a whole new can of worms, but the only time I could see Canonical not approving a fork is if it's explicitly for something illegal.

I could imagine Canonical not supporting (and I would agree with them): ChildMolestersUbuntu or TerroristBombersUbuntu or EmbezzlersUbuntu.

Very true..

It should be stated that the act of being a christian (or having any religion) is not illegal in the world as a whole.. nor should it be. The issues people have with TerroristBOmbersUbuntu would be on legal grounds, not the moral grounds that people have with CE.

The fact is, people just don't like Christians, and resent Ubuntu being used by churches. Their resentment is fine, but they need to follow the code and disagree politely.

When this makes Ubuntu LESS available, I'll have a problem with it. When it affects what I download or endorses Christianity over other religions, then I'll have a problem with it.

Currently, Ubuntu:CE contains EXACTLY the same packages as Ubuntu. Maybe some day it could contain more. Where is the hatred for Ubuntu having these packages?

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 04:59 PM
When this makes Ubuntu LESS available, I'll have a problem with it. When it affects what I download or endorses Christianity over other religions, then I'll have a problem with it. Agreed. If Christians start overloading the Ubuntu mirrors, they need to get their own mirror!

... and I am a Christian saying that.

CaptainTux
August 10th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Freedom means Freedom. It doesn't mean Freedom (except where we dont' approve)

Nail on the head!:D

G Morgan
August 10th, 2006, 05:24 PM
I can't see why people are against Christianity in this. There is a difference between fundamentalism (which is harmful) and religion as its generally practiced. Any worries I may have over organised religion are far less important than worries I have over infringement of freedoms. The key issue against religion generally is that they have in the past restricted freedoms but to restrict their freedoms in response is hypocrisy.

Theres also the issue of segregating the distro. It sounds relevant at first but this is a paradox, its little more than a name with a few different packages not a complete parting of ways. A bug report for Firefox in Ubuntu CE would be for the same version of Firefox as in standard Ubuntu so has as much weight. Customisation is not segregation.

A lot of churches provide charitable aid as well. If this would help them reduce their costs then I'm all for it despite being against formal organised religion. Anyway, what better way to get across that Linux is not satanic than to have it used by the Church ;).

bensexson
August 10th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Maybe it would help if we got a complete description of the permission that has been given for this edition. I do not have a problem with someone making a fork of Ubuntu for a religious themed distro. I just dont think we should see a Chubuntu (Christian Ubuntu) under Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu. Only because there would then have to be different versions for all religions or it would be unetical in my opinion. I have mentioned in another thread I consider myself an agnostic and actively dislike Christianity but I also believe in freedom of religion. I think this dovetails completely with the concept of OSS. It is open source and if someone wants to make anything that does not violate the GPL I don't see the problem. Canonical should allow this and not stop it but I do not think they should actively support it because it opens many issues. So back to the main issue. Do we know exactly what support has been provide by Canonical? If it is the same support anyone trying to fork off would get, I do not see how this is a problem or even an issue.

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 05:34 PM
It never was going to be under the main releases of Ubuntu. That was never the issue. The issue that people seem to have is that Ubuntu in general is being used for this, and that Canonical has been asked and "okays" this distribution.

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Some quotations from Jereme, the creator of Christian Edition Ubuntu...

From post #340 of a very long thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1349665&postcount=340):
Thanks, I have saved the logo to my ever growing collection. I like the concept a lot, but one of the guidelines that I have been given was to not change the logo.

From post #271 of a very long thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1313057&postcount=271):
I have received further confimation from Canonical regarding the Ubuntu Christian Edition project. They have given their "blessing" on it. However, they want me to make some changes to the look of the project site. They want it to be more distinctive. I have been making some changes and I am waiting for their response. I am hoping to stay with something similiar to the Ubuntu look and feel.

From The Ubuntu Christian Edition FAQ (http://www.whatwouldjesusdownload.com/christianubuntu/2006/07/faq.html):
Q: Is Ubuntu Christian Edition a new distribution of Ubuntu or a derivative?

A: Well it is really neither. Ubuntu Christian Edition is based directly from the standard Ubuntu distribution and only contains extra Christian software available from the Ubuntu software repositories. The graphical changes are minor and are only intended to tailor the project to Christians.

Q: Why should I use the Ubuntu Christian Edition if I can install the same software to the default Ubuntu?

A: The concept behind the Ubuntu Christian Edition is not to deviate from the Ubuntu community. It is intended to draw a larger Christian base to the already thriving community of Ubuntu users. The Ubuntu Christian Edition simply makes it easier for Christians who are new to Linux to see the power of Ubuntu combined with the added benefit of having the best available Linux Christian software preinstalled.

bensexson
August 10th, 2006, 05:45 PM
OK then the question becomes: If I want to make my own version, will I get the same support? Unless I want to make as, aysiu said, an Ubuntu for illegal activity of course. Like the related thread Ubuntu Satanic Version. I should be able to make this as well. I don't want to, but I should be able to if I wanted to and get the same level of support. Also I will say I think an Ubuntu Islam Edition and Ubuntu Jewish Edition would also be very good ideas. Though I am not motivated enough to do it myself.

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 05:52 PM
OK then the question becomes: If I want to make my own version, will I get the same support? What level of "support" do you think Jereme got? I think he appears to have just gotten an "Okay, but don't alter this logo and make sure your artwork stays consistent with our other artwork."


I don't want to, but I should be able to if I wanted to and get the same level of support. Well, I guess you'll never know. I think that's something else that some ranters and ravers about this are missing--Christian Ubuntu exists because someone created it. It didn't get created because Canonical thought it was a good idea. If you want Satanic Ubuntu, make it. It won't happen on its own.

bensexson
August 10th, 2006, 06:40 PM
Note I am not ranting. I said the same level of support. That means exactly what I said. What ever he got. I assume I would get the same level. However much or little this is. Note I am assuming I WOULD get the same level. I believe in OSS and think Ubuntu devs and other associated would see this the same way. I think this is the crux. As long as anyone who puts the effort into it they should get the same approval and guidance. As much or a little as it is. I hope we all can agree on this. Everyone with some small exceptions should get the same access. As long as this is the case (and I bet they would) there should not be a problem.

Redcard
August 10th, 2006, 07:18 PM
Someone asked if it crossed my mind that mission trips are offensive to the "whole non christian world."

I'm non-christian. I'd like to point out that if we're arguing numbers here, the world IS nearly 1/3rd Christian. Whether you agree with Christianity or not, arguing that the "whole non-christian world" is offended by mission trips does seem to forget that one out of every three people on this planet, that is, over 2.1 billion people, ARE christian.

I'm offended by a lot of things. I'm offended at how gay people are treated, and there are far more people offended at homosexuality than are offended at Christianity.. but would people be as up in arms about a homosexual version of Ubuntu? Let's be realistic here. This is NOT a small target market that people are going after with CE. This is a market that covers 1 in every three people on this planet.

aysiu
August 10th, 2006, 07:49 PM
To be perfectly honest, even though I was support a Satanist Ubuntu, I highly doubt Canonical would, for PR purposes. They would probably give the same support for Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam... but not necessarily for Satanism.

rattlerviper
August 11th, 2006, 12:46 AM
To be perfectly honest, even though I was support a Satanist Ubuntu, I highly doubt Canonical would, for PR purposes. They would probably give the same support for Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam... but not necessarily for Satanism.

They could call it Hornybuntu. LOL

G Morgan
August 11th, 2006, 02:53 AM
They could call it Hornybuntu. LOL

They should make that just for the name.

rattlerviper
August 11th, 2006, 03:37 AM
They should make that just for the name.

LOL. I suppose they could make a version for teenage boys and call it the same thing.;)

Iandefor
August 11th, 2006, 04:40 AM
I for one hope that Canonical doesn't back this "Christbuntu", as it is opening up a very bad can of worms. There's no real need for it, and it would be saying to the world that Canonical aligns itself specifically to Christians. No doubt, then, others will come forward with their own versions and cry foul if Canonical doesn't back them.

Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that? Canonical isn't backing them. I also don't see any particular need for it, but if other people do, then I'd be going directly against the spirit of Ubuntu to try and stop them.


Good good, then I shall use my freedom to stop using ubuntu, since it backs something *I* don't agree with, and consider evil.

I can see this as the start of a very slippery slope for ubuntu. They aren't backing it. Canonical has granted them official permission to use the name and logo. That's all. There is no good reason Canonical would not do the same for a Jewbuntu or a Bodhibuntu.


I've gotta say, I disagree with the concept. Not the existance of such a thing, but official support from Canonical, yeah, that rubs me the wrong way. Because, yes, it is playing favorites with religion. Only if you believe that other religious groups not jumping up and tacking their religious works on and christening it [Religious Reference]-Buntu and then getting trademark permission from Canonical is "playing favorites"

I really don't understand where people got the idea that Canonical's backing it. Canonical hasn't disallowed them from using the Ubuntu name and logo is all they have done. NOTHING MORE.


OK then the question becomes: If I want to make my own version, will I get the same support? Unless I want to make as, aysiu said, an Ubuntu for illegal activity of course. Like the related thread Ubuntu Satanic Version. I should be able to make this as well. I don't want to, but I should be able to if I wanted to and get the same level of support. Also I will say I think an Ubuntu Islam Edition and Ubuntu Jewish Edition would also be very good ideas. Though I am not motivated enough to do it myself. Most likely, you'd be allowed.


LOL. I suppose they could make a version for teenage boys and call it the same thing.;) As a member of the group "teenage boys", I take offense at your implication!

*sniggers*

Hmm... what would they include on-disk? Wine and a copy of Counterstrike or *something* ;)?

G Morgan
August 11th, 2006, 05:47 AM
Likely a return of the automatically updating desktop. Thats Hornybuntu for you ;).

rattlerviper
August 11th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Canonical isn't backing them. I also don't see any particular need for it, but if other people do, then I'd be going directly against the spirit of Ubuntu to try and stop them.

They aren't backing it. Canonical has granted them official permission to use the name and logo. That's all. There is no good reason Canonical would not do the same for a Jewbuntu or a Bodhibuntu.

Only if you believe that other religious groups not jumping up and tacking their religious works on and christening it [Religious Reference]-Buntu and then getting trademark permission from Canonical is "playing favorites"

I really don't understand where people got the idea that Canonical's backing it. Canonical hasn't disallowed them from using the Ubuntu name and logo is all they have done. NOTHING MORE.

Most likely, you'd be allowed.

As a member of the group "teenage boys", I take offense at your implication!

*sniggers*

Hmm... what would they include on-disk? Wine and a copy of Counterstrike or *something* ;)?


Nah...Jessica Albba(dang if we can just fit her in the box)just joking. Just trying to lighten the situation a little. I know people on both sides of this issue have strong feelings. Somewhere there has to be found that common ground that can get everyone past this. Whether a person likes or not the Christian Edition is out there, and I would guess out there to stay at least for awhile.

Everyone on both sides just needs to realize what this really means. So what if there is a Christian Edition? What it really means is Canonical stands behind the Ubuntu Philosophy, it's not just some hogwash marketing scheme. The philosophy IS as good as it sounded the first time you read it. If someone wants to create a version idolizing their dog it really doesn't matter(well that might be a little crazy). What stands is this is truly FREEDOM.

bruce89
August 11th, 2006, 02:35 PM
If this Christian one is being blessed (no pun intended) as an official derivative by Canonical, then we also need a Muslim one, a Jewish one, and one for all the other religions.

If this Christian one isn't blessed as a official derivative by Canonical, that's fine, otherwise Christianity would be the official Ubuntu religion.

bjweeks
August 11th, 2006, 02:36 PM
WOW, this whole argument is dumb, there are tons of distro forks, most are totally pointless(excpet to a small group) but no need to complain every time somebody starts a new useless distro.

bjweeks
August 11th, 2006, 02:37 PM
If this Christian one is being blessed (no pun intended) by Canonical, then we also need a Muslim one, a Jewish one, and all the other religions.

If this Christian one isn't blessed by Canonical, that's fine.

From what I understand it just got the rights to use the logo and other artwork, any other fork could ask for it also.

mhancoc7
August 11th, 2006, 02:58 PM
Ok, I am not going to continue to argue the validity of my project. That has been exhausted.

I would like to make a few observations and clarifications though.

1. Ubuntu is Open Source. I am no expert, but I do know that this gives anyone the freedom to customize it to meet their needs and redistribute it under certain guidlines.

2. The Ubuntu CE project is not officially supported by Canonical. They simply understand the concept of Open Source.

3. The Ubuntu CE distro is not intended to convert non-christians to Christianity. The Ubuntu CE distro is not intended to bring Jesus to Ubuntu users, but to bring Ubuntu to Christian believers.

I am not all that surprised at the negative reaction the project has gotten in some ways. I mean anytime you say the word Christian or Jesus you are taking the risk of getting ridiculed. That is ok, I expect that. The real problem that I have is that there are so many of you who love the concept of Open Source until something takes advantage of it to create something for a group of people who do not share your same world view.

As for MuslimUbuntu, AtheistUbuntu, JewishUbuntu, and the others mentioned. Go ahead, if there is a need then more power to you. I would wish you well with your project. I guess what I really want to say is, "Why don't you all stop ranting and create something useful for the community".

Jereme

bjweeks
August 11th, 2006, 03:11 PM
Ok, I am not going to continue to argue the validity of my project. That has been exhausted.

I would like to make a few observations and clarifications though.

1. Ubuntu is Open Source. I am no expert, but I do know that this gives anyone the freedom to customize it to meet their needs and redistribute it under certain guidlines.

2. The Ubuntu CE project is not officially supported by Canonical. They simply understand the concept of Open Source.

3. The Ubuntu CE distro is not intended to convert non-christians to Christianity. The Ubuntu CE distro is not intended to bring Jesus to Ubuntu users, but to bring Ubuntu to Christian believers.

I am not all that surprised at the negative reaction the project has gotten in some ways. I mean anytime you say the word Christian or Jesus you are taking the risk of getting ridiculed. That is ok, I expect that. The real problem that I have is that there are so many of you who love the concept of Open Source until something takes advantage of it to create something for a group of people who do not share your same world view.

As for MuslimUbuntu, AtheistUbuntu, JewishUbuntu, and the others mentioned. Go ahead, if there is a need then more power to you. I would wish you well with your project. I guess what I really want to say is, "Why don't you all stop ranting and create something useful for the community".

Jereme

Being Atheist I still feel sorry for you and this just shows how little most people know about open source.

aysiu
August 11th, 2006, 03:48 PM
Being Atheist I still feel sorry for you and this just shows how little most people know about open source.
Can you explain a bit what you mean, bjweeks? What part of open source is mhancoc7 not getting, according to you? Open source cannot be use for religious purposes?

Terracotta
August 11th, 2006, 03:52 PM
"Why don't you all stop ranting and create something useful for the community".
Jereme

The people who objected to this christian edition object to the idea of segregation based on religion, so they're not gonna make their own religious ubuntu edition. And they mostly object to the fact that it could create a christian stain on the name ubuntu.



Being Atheist I still feel sorry for you and this just shows how little most people know about open source.


Nobody objected to the project to make ubuntu easier for christians, merely on the inplementation of the project.

But well all is said and done, perhaps it is time for their own section in the third party projects place? That would make it clear that it just got some blessings from Canonical but that it is not a supported version, and it would save me from reading pittifull attacks and defences :mrgreen: (euh for those who have no humor: that was a joke)

aysiu
August 11th, 2006, 03:59 PM
The people who objected to this christian edition object to the idea of segregation based on religion, so they're not gonna make their own religious ubuntu edition. And they mostly object to the fact that it could create a christian stain on the name ubuntu. And their objections are mostly unfounded and based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt... and speculation... instead of cold, hard facts.

Terracotta
August 11th, 2006, 04:11 PM
And their objections are mostly unfounded and based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt... and speculation... instead of cold, hard facts.

Mhm got a point there, though you might as well show the rest of my post too: Nobody has ever objected agains a project for christians.

Redcard
August 11th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Mhm got a point there, though you might as well show the rest of my post too: Nobody has ever objected agains a project for christians.

Yeah, right.

You need to seriously read the comments that have been posted in this thread/moved to the jail/etc.

If this were ANY group but a religious group, the complaints would have not been as vitriolic. Saying that it was because ubuntu offered ideas / permission to a christian group is a copout. If this group wasn't christian, but was instead "Sports Fans" or "Scientists" .. there would not have been this much hassle.

Terracotta
August 11th, 2006, 04:26 PM
Yeah, right.

You need to seriously read the comments that have been posted in this thread/moved to the jail/etc.

If this were ANY group but a religious group, the complaints would have not been as vitriolic. Saying that it was because ubuntu offered ideas / permission to a christian group is a copout. If this group wasn't christian, but was instead "Sports Fans" or "Scientists" .. there would not have been this much hassle.

I think you're the one who has to reread them, all the objections were against a christian version, as a seperate edition, but they ALL suggested something automatix like. After they got flamed for that some of them became a bit angry, but that was mainly because the only reaction they got was like: how do you dare to critisise us. I'm not saying that some of the people who objected were... a bit... harsh or rude, but if you read the post objective and go past beyond the emotions some people showed you'll see that they offered alternativs and did not object to a christian project at all.

Redcard
August 11th, 2006, 04:36 PM
I think you're the one who has to reread them, all the objections were against a christian version, as a seperate edition, but they ALL suggested something automatix like. After they got flamed for that some of them became a bit angry, but that was mainly because the only reaction they got was like: how do you dare to critisise us. I'm not saying that some of the people who objected were... a bit... harsh or rude, but if you read the post objective and go past beyond the emotions some people showed you'll see that they offered alternativs and did not object to a christian project at all.

See, that's the problem.

They DIDN'T object to a christian project that could be shoved to the side.. they objected to a Live CD. They objected to something that could be given out in churches and on mission trips and the like.

That smacks to me of elitism and controlling. The reason an automatix situation might not work in the case of this project is for people who might not have internet access. The default packages on the LiveCD do not contain the bible software and other software necessary.

When people heard that it was going to be a LiveCD, and that J had gotten permission from Canonical, they went NUTS.

Half the posts about this that ended up in the jail or in the closed thread discussed how evil it was to "have a free OS customized for such an oppressive religion."

And that simply "USING Ubuntu for this is insulting to Ubuntu and Canonical should disallow it."

And one person even QUIT USING UBUNTU because Canonical said that J could use the Ubuntu trademark and logo in his livecd stuff.

The fact that there was a Christian VERSION of Ubuntu put out by a third party so incensed this guy that he refuses to use Ubuntu.

The fact is, Terracotta, that a LARGE number of people would rather this certain group not have a specfic distribution at all. There's no way around it. And if this group was NOT christian (or even religious based), that level of dissent would NOT be occurring.

mhancoc7
August 11th, 2006, 04:52 PM
I think you're the one who has to reread them, all the objections were against a christian version, as a seperate edition, but they ALL suggested something automatix like. After they got flamed for that some of them became a bit angry, but that was mainly because the only reaction they got was like: how do you dare to critisise us. I'm not saying that some of the people who objected were... a bit... harsh or rude, but if you read the post objective and go past beyond the emotions some people showed you'll see that they offered alternativs and did not object to a christian project at all.

This is simply untrue. When the suggestions for a automatix type solution or a bash script to do this. I responded that it was a great idea and needed to be discussed. I only noted that the idea is that I wanted to be able to give LiveCDs to Christians who may have never heard of Ubuntu or Linux for that matter. I mean I want to make it an easier transition to Ubuntu. Let's say I hand someone an Ubuntu LiveCD and say oh and you can sudo apt-get "yada yada" to make it a Christian Edition. That is just poor marketing.

Oh and as a matter of fact I am building scripts that will "convert" a default Ubuntu to the Christian Edition for those who may already have Ubuntu installed. So the idea of a script is going to be used as another option for users.

Jereme

Terracotta
August 11th, 2006, 06:01 PM
This is simply untrue. When the suggestions for a automatix type solution or a bash script to do this. I responded that it was a great idea and needed to be discussed. I only noted that the idea is that I wanted to be able to give LiveCDs to Christians who may have never heard of Ubuntu or Linux for that matter. I mean I want to make it an easier transition to Ubuntu. Let's say I hand someone an Ubuntu LiveCD and say oh and you can sudo apt-get "yada yada" to make it a Christian Edition. That is just poor marketing.

Oh and as a matter of fact I am building scripts that will "convert" a default Ubuntu to the Christian Edition for those who may already have Ubuntu installed. So the idea of a script is going to be used as another option for users.

Jereme
I know you did, and you've said that a lot of times, I'm not arguing that, but every time someone started questioning the need for a live cd (again) they always suggested for an automatix like solution. They did not bash the christian edition for the christian project, they all stated they didn't like a new version/separate edition. This thread is actually the same as the previous one, for you it might be a burdon, because well you always have to answer the same thing, but the people objecting are always different people that happened to have missed the previous one. I feel sorry for you, you have to hear the same things over and over again, but I also think that the ones objecting are not bashing christianity itself, which is apparently what you and some others seem to think.




See, that's the problem.

They DIDN'T object to a christian project that could be shoved to the side.. they objected to a Live CD. They objected to something that could be given out in churches and on mission trips and the like.

That smacks to me of elitism and controlling. The reason an automatix situation might not work in the case of this project is for people who might not have internet access. The default packages on the LiveCD do not contain the bible software and other software necessary.

When people heard that it was going to be a LiveCD, and that J had gotten permission from Canonical, they went NUTS.

Half the posts about this that ended up in the jail or in the closed thread discussed how evil it was to "have a free OS customized for such an oppressive religion."

And that simply "USING Ubuntu for this is insulting to Ubuntu and Canonical should disallow it."

And one person even QUIT USING UBUNTU because Canonical said that J could use the Ubuntu trademark and logo in his livecd stuff.

The fact that there was a Christian VERSION of Ubuntu put out by a third party so incensed this guy that he refuses to use Ubuntu.

The fact is, Terracotta, that a LARGE number of people would rather this certain group not have a specfic distribution at all. There's no way around it. And if this group was NOT christian (or even religious based), that level of dissent would NOT be occurring.


I'm not gonna go over the technical parts again (sharing, showing...), I thought and still think it could be solved otherwise, but mhancoc7 disagreed which is his right, and since it's his project he is the one that decides what happens, so I'm gonna leave it to that.

About the controlling elitism part, I think this project is more elite than what you accuse people of.

The quotes you put in there, I don't think anybody has really said that, you might have interpretet it that way though.
The person that might have quit ubuntu did so because he thought ubuntu CE was an official flavor of Ubuntu which is not so surprising, considering the name.

The fact is that there is no other third party group that does the same thing, so you can't say that it wouldn't cause the same kind of objections, I think that they'd be ridiculed, rather than getting some critisism.

aysiu
August 11th, 2006, 10:37 PM
every time someone started questioning the need for a live cd (again) they always suggested for an automatix like solution. They did not bash the christian edition for the christian project, they all stated they didn't like a new version/separate edition. This criticism in the original post in this thread seems to be very much against the Christian edition:
I for one hope that Canonical doesn't back this "Christbuntu", as it is opening up a very bad can of worms. There's no real need for it, and it would be saying to the world that Canonical aligns itself specifically to Christians. No doubt, then, others will come forward with their own versions and cry foul if Canonical doesn't back them.

Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that?

Terracotta
August 11th, 2006, 11:28 PM
This criticism in the original post in this thread seems to be very much against the Christian edition:

As you can read very well, against the christian edition (as I said), not against a christian project:



Why not just show christains how to install their much needed bible study programs and leave it at that?


As you quoted yourself. Ok, a veeery minimalistic project, I admit that, but most of his statements came out of ignorance and conclusions he made that aren't that surprising at all.

aysiu
August 12th, 2006, 03:05 AM
most of his statements came out of ignorance and conclusions he made that aren't that surprising at all. Which is the point I made earlier. If people truly understood that...

1. This project came out of one user's passion to address the needs of a particular community
2. This project wasn't from Canonical
3. Canonical isn't supporting this project financially
4. This project isn't on par with Xubuntu, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Edubuntu--it's simply a repackaged version of Ubuntu with some cosmetic changes targeted at a certain group
5. The CD being live is important to the person who's doing the work
6. The person doing the work is doing the work and isn't demanding anything of other people or Canonical
7. Anyone is welcome to make their own Ubuntu edition--religiously related or not

... there wouldn't be as many objections. But people seem to operate based on this weird FUD mentality, and I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it's a Christian project. After all, no one ever objected to Edubuntu and said, "Hey, just make a script that does that," even though that's a Canonical-sponsored project. It's the religious aspect that's got people up in arms.

bjweeks
August 12th, 2006, 03:56 AM
Can you explain a bit what you mean, bjweeks? What part of open source is mhancoc7 not getting, according to you? Open source cannot be use for religious purposes?

Sorry, I was supporting him.

mhancoc7
August 12th, 2006, 05:16 AM
Sorry, I was supporting him.

Yeah, I took it as support :). Thanks for that.
Jereme

aysiu
August 12th, 2006, 06:06 AM
Sorry, I was supporting him.
I probably took it out of context. Sorry.

Terracotta
August 12th, 2006, 08:11 AM
... there wouldn't be as many objections. But people seem to operate based on this weird FUD mentality, and I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it's a Christian project. After all, no one ever objected to Edubuntu and said, "Hey, just make a script that does that," even though that's a Canonical-sponsored project. It's the religious aspect that's got people up in arms.

1) Yup, undeniable, I hope he doesn't loose his passion because of all of this though, it's what drives us.
2), 3) and 4): how's one supposed to know that when the name is Ubuntu CE? When we live in a world were we have to find so much information the title is very important and is the base of what people make their conclusions on. Wrong? Sure, but choosing the right title for the right project is quite important since almost nobody reads the information surrounding something, using the same name as the distro you derived from is almost claiming you're part of the big deal (I do know it's nothing but ubuntu and some aditional software, I'm not talking about the software part, but about the naminge-support part, let's just put it on an unlucky chosen name).
5) again, it may be to him, it's his right, he creates it after all, doesn't mean other people think it can't be done otherwise.
6) same as under 2)
7) Indeed.

The very fact that people still can't really figure out what Ubuntu CE really is, shows that the intial objections (christian stain, technically not necesary...), were no FUD at all. I never denied it wasn't caused because of the religious thing (I think, if you can quote me I'll appologise for that), but they claimed it was because it's a christian thing, which to me is quite a big difference: religion != christianity, religion is quite a bigger part of the world than christianity, if you want to read more about that I'd suggest to read post nr 14 in this thread.

As for the edubuntu part: in every culture, society, civilisation... education is a very important part of it, so no nobody will ever object to that, everybody can see the benefits there.

I'd also appreciate it if you, or anyone else didn't put words in my mouth I didn't use, this isn't the first time in this thread that my words are twisted:
when I use christianity I mean christianity, one single implementation of religion, and not religion itself, when I use religion I mean all religions in the world.
When I say edition, I mean a new version, seperate edition. when I say project I mean project and not one single implementation in which his goals can be accomplished.
Perhaps to you religion and christianity are the same thing, they are not, christianity is one part of the bigger whole. When people object to religious things they object to every form of it and don't single out one of them.

Kind regards,
Terracotta.

aysiu
August 12th, 2006, 08:44 AM
There's no need to condescend. I know Christianity is not religion. I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're not prejudiced against Christianity and would be equally upset about Ubuntu BE (Buddhist Edition) or Ubuntu JE (Jewish Edition).

That's the point, though--people are up in arms because it's about religion, not education. Religion, politics, race, gender, sexuality. These are issues that get people upset. Just like at the Ubuntu Women section of this site--some quite heated debates about it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, and I'm not sure why you're getting that impression. And I have not seen many objectors (like the OP in this thread, for example) making distinctions between projects and editions or versions. In fact, I believe yours was the first post to actually make that distinction.

So are you saying that if mhancoc7 had said, "I want to create a project (please note it's an edition) for Christians" that no one would have objected?

aysiu
August 12th, 2006, 09:01 AM
What some people say is that they shouldn't make themselves more important than they are. Christianity is a part of humanity and is not a segregated group. How does making a Ubuntu Christian Edition make Christianity separate from humanity any more than making a separate Edubuntu make education separate from humanity? Different sets of software packages target different groups' needs.
From what I read nobody would have had a problem with a project like automatix for christianity, it would put religion on the right place. And it has been stated many times that that solution is not what the creator of Ubuntu CE wants because it would be used for demonstration purposes as a live CD for churches... many of which do not have internet connections. And if you've ever done demonstrations before, you would know it's not very impressive to say, "Yeah, hold on... let me just add this CD as a repository, I'll install the Christian package, change the wallpaper and do a few other tweaks. Why don't you go to the bathroom, get some coffee, and come back in ten minutes?" It's a lot more impressive to just pop the CD in and go. Same goes for Edubuntu. Same goes for Kubuntu and Xubuntu.
It seriously bothers me that no criticism is allowed what so ever regarding christianity I don't see how criticisms of Christianity are relevant to someone creating a tailored version of Ubuntu for Christians. If you don't believe in Christianity, don't use the software.
the only respons people that object get: close your eyes so you don't see it and it won't bother you anymore. And it won't. I happen to not like Linspire. Does that mean I object to Linspire's very existence and would deny them their own distro and their own web forums? Isn't Ubuntu "segregating itself" from humanity by having its own distro instead of just using Debian?

The very nature of open source and Linux calls for splits and targeted versions of software for particular groups' needs. This is not "segregation." It's specialization and diversity.


The discussion in my point of view is more about the importance christianity gets in ubuntu than that it comes to use/change software. And until you can show a case where someone wanted to create a similar project for Judaism, Buddhism, or another major religion and was treated differently by Canonical, then you don't really have a case for Christianity getting more importance in the Ubuntu world.
I think either ubuntu CE should have another name and go completely different like mepis does Take it up with the creator then.
or become a small project like automatix. Why?
Apparently the ubuntu devs disagree and have given their blessings, fine by me enough said. Then stop talking about it!


This does not serve people, there are other ways to accomplish what you want. Please explain what those other ways are, because, as I just explained, an Automatix-like script is hardly a substitute for a fully-functional, tailored live CD.
Ubuntu means humanity, christianity is a part of it, christianity therefor should stay a part of it instead of trying to segregate itself. And you have yet to show how a tailored distribution to a particular group's needs is "segregation from humanity."
Already responded to the forcing part. And again nobody is making it more difficult for someone to use/produce the software someone wants to use/produce. Critisism != forbidding,stopping,forcing to not use something. But what purpose does your criticism serve?



I for myself don't care that much anymore about the project, I've raised my objections, pointed the things out I wanted to say in the former thread. All I'm gonna do is respons to people who are trying to silence any form of critisism just because they feel threatened by any form of critisism regarding their faith. People who disagree with you aren't silencing you any more than you are silencing them by disagreeing with them. The only way people could be silencing you is deleting your posts or moving them to the Jail part of the forums.


The people who objected to this christian edition object to the idea of segregation based on religion, so they're not gonna make their own religious ubuntu edition. And they mostly object to the fact that it could create a christian stain on the name ubuntu. How is a Christian Ubuntu a "stain" on the name Ubuntu if it is an entirely separate project that is not sponsored financially by Canonical or that appears anywhere on Ubuntu's website?


Nobody objected to the project to make ubuntu easier for christians, merely on the inplementation of the project. All the alternatives (like your Automatix suggestion) do not make it as easy. Sorry. They don't.

Terracotta
August 12th, 2006, 09:13 AM
There's no need to condescend. I know Christianity is not religion. I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're not prejudiced against Christianity and would be equally upset about Ubuntu BE (Buddhist Edition) or Ubuntu JE (Jewish Edition).

That's the point, though--people are up in arms because it's about religion, not education. Religion, politics, race, gender, sexuality. These are issues that get people upset. Just like at the Ubuntu Women section of this site--some quite heated debates about it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, and I'm not sure why you're getting that impression. And I have not seen many objectors (like the OP in this thread, for example) making distinctions between projects and editions or versions. In fact, I believe yours was the first post to actually make that distinction.

So are you saying that if mhancoc7 had said, "I want to create a project (please note it's an edition) for Christians" that no one would have objected?
Uh euh I never tried to be condescendend, I appologise if I gave you that impression, but every time I say no one is picking out christianity, there's always someone countering me that the objections are anti-religious, which is something I never denied.

I am saying that if he had created a third-party project with for example documentation, or an automatix-like script or... He wouldn't have had as much negative reactions as now. If he had chosen another less Ubuntu bound name he might had saved himself some trouble as well. These are of course mights and if and... But if one looks closely to the first posts of those who made objections one finds that they almost always "offer" another "solution", obtainable or not, which is the reason why I made the distinction between objecting to a christian project and a christian edition. The latter is one implementation of the former. An implementation not liked by many. And it was always the implementation that got bashed, not the project.

The reason why people are not against education (I think) is because education is valued high by almost everybody, it's a common thing. Religions, politics, race, gender, sexuality... divide us, whereas education brings us together (at least it should).

There are for example some people trying to start a pill-here-pill-there-ubuntu (medical ubuntu), I kinda feel the same way about it as I feel to this project. I never complaint, and I'm not gonna complain to them because apparently the ubuntu devs want people to create different versions of ubuntu even if it's for such a small audience, or if the difference is so small. The ubuntu devs are the ones that decide what happens and if they think that's the way to go, then I'll follow, because 1) I don't really know what they're up to or what their meaning of all this is and 2) It's their project, they can decide whatever they want and however they want their name to be used, and I'm in no position and have no desire to tell anybody what he/she should/shouldn't do.

Terracotta
August 12th, 2006, 09:45 AM
How does making a Ubuntu Christian Edition make Christianity separate from humanity any more than making a separate Edubuntu make education separate from humanity?

Different sets of software packages target different groups' needs. And it has been stated many times that that solution is not what the creator of Ubuntu CE wants because it would be used for demonstration purposes as a live CD for churches... many of which do not have internet connections. And if you've ever done demonstrations before, you would know it's not very impressive to say, "Yeah, hold on... let me just add this CD as a repository, I'll install the Christian package, change the wallpaper and do a few other tweaks. Why don't you go to the bathroom, get some coffee, and come back in ten minutes?" It's a lot more impressive to just pop the CD in and go. Same goes for Edubuntu. Same goes for Kubuntu and Xubuntu. I don't see how criticisms of Christianity are relevant to someone creating a tailored version of Ubuntu for Christians. If you don't believe in Christianity, don't use the software. And it won't. I happen to not like Linspire. Does that mean I object to Linspire's very existence and would deny them their own distro and their own web forums? Isn't Ubuntu "segregating itself" from humanity by having its own distro instead of just using Debian?


I'm not gonna go on the technical side (again, I've given him my options, he didn't like them, fine by me, I moved on on that(as in technical part), what I merely pointed out that if he had created something alike automatix he wouldn't have had so much negative reactions, I was nowhere in post nr 14 discussing how he should do it to obtain his goals, I was just saying that those reactions would have been less if he had done it differently, this was NOT a technical discussion and I'm not gonna turn it into one.



The very nature of open source and Linux calls for splits and targeted versions of software for particular groups' needs. This is not "segregation." It's specialization and diversity.

And until you can show a case where someone wanted to create a similar project for Judaism, Buddhism, or another major religion and was treated differently by Canonical, then you don't really have a case for Christianity getting more importance in the Ubuntu world. Take it up with the creator then. Why? Then stop talking about it!

It does ask for splits but I already covered those, it's the devs' call, I stopped ranting about the technical discussion after they had given their blessing and the decision to go to a complete different Live-cd was already made. I was however still pointing out that this decision was the very lead to objections, not because it was christian but because it created a distinction, the technical parts I did use was all in the context that a different live-cd was the cause for it, and that an automatix-like solution wouldn't have gotten as much negative reactions, whether it is possible to obtain his goals this way is unimportant in the religious/filosophical discussion. I did take it up to the creator ( in the former thread), and was not talking about technical things anymore.



Please explain what those other ways are, because, as I just explained, an Automatix-like script is hardly a substitute for a fully-functional, tailored live CD. And you have yet to show how a tailored distribution to a particular group's needs is "segregation from humanity." But what purpose does your criticism serve?

I didn't think much further on how he could have done it otherwise since he wanted to go for the live-cd, so there's no point in spending time on developing a different way is there. I still believe that another solution could have been made, but it takes time to develop these things and to think about these solutions. And again it's going technical.



People who disagree with you aren't silencing you any more than you are silencing them by disagreeing with them. The only way people could be silencing you is deleting your posts or moving them to the Jail part of the forums.

That is true, but the most used defence against the negative reactions were like:
How dare you to give any objection towards this project, it does this this and this... (and no mhancoc7, I haven't seen you do this, you've pointed out very well what you wanted to accomplish and why you wanted a live-cd instead of an automatix-like solution). Quite the condescending answer if you ask me, and not open to any other solutions than the ones already available.



How is a Christian Ubuntu a "stain" on the name Ubuntu if it is an entirely separate project that is not sponsored financially by Canonical or that appears anywhere on Ubuntu's website?

All the alternatives (like your Automatix suggestion) do not make it as easy. Sorry. They don't.
Whether they do or don't is irrelevant to this discussion as I pointed out often, I was stating that this technical decision is the cause of the negativity.

The very fact that people think that Ubuntu CE is an official part of ubuntu leaves a christian stain on it. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant.

Kind regards,
Terracotta

egon spengler
August 12th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Someone asked if it crossed my mind that mission trips are offensive to the "whole non christian world."

I'm non-christian. I'd like to point out that if we're arguing numbers here, the world IS nearly 1/3rd Christian. Whether you agree with Christianity or not, arguing that the "whole non-christian world" is offended by mission trips does seem to forget that one out of every three people on this planet, that is, over 2.1 billion people, ARE christian.

I'm offended by a lot of things. I'm offended at how gay people are treated, and there are far more people offended at homosexuality than are offended at Christianity.. but would people be as up in arms about a homosexual version of Ubuntu? Let's be realistic here. This is NOT a small target market that people are going after with CE. This is a market that covers 1 in every three people on this planet.

To most people the term "missionary" conjures up images of white Europeans traveling to Africa and the Americas to "civilise the savage natives". I find it very hard to believe that you're not aware of this image. And I would find it equally hard to believe that you would fail to understand why some people may find it distasteful. There's no equivalency to your imagined levels of reaction to a homosexual edition of ubuntu.


Ok, I am not going to continue to argue the validity of my project. That has been exhausted.

I would like to make a few observations and clarifications though.

1. Ubuntu is Open Source. I am no expert, but I do know that this gives anyone the freedom to customize it to meet their needs and redistribute it under certain guidlines.

2. The Ubuntu CE project is not officially supported by Canonical. They simply understand the concept of Open Source.

I am no expert on OSS and the GPL either, I can't help but wonder though, by virtue of being open source does that instantly grant all of us the right to use a projects name, logo and artwork as we see fit? Throughout this thread i've seen a few comments along the lines of "Well they made ubuntu OSS, so they HAVE to support this new version" So does this mean that I can just use, say, Gentoo's logo and name and because of Gentoo being OSS they HAVE to support my project?

Well actually I just checked the ubuntu front page and appaerntly the term ubuntu is a registered trademark. This means that they are not bound by the GPL to allow you to use their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, just that they don't have to. They can very easily comply with the terms of the GPL just by letting you have access to the source and then completely washing their hands of the project

newlinuxusr
August 25th, 2006, 06:08 AM
I think that this whole christbuntu thing is completely ridiculus. How about we make ubuntu "white edition" and ubuntu "old timer's edition". Why can't chrisitians just be like the rest of us and just download the bible package or whatever other packages that they need. its probably just as easy as a sudo apt-get install <bible package here>.

And anyway, what kind of f***ing loser would actually download ubuntu "christian edition" anyway?

mhancoc7
August 25th, 2006, 07:30 AM
I am no expert on OSS and the GPL either, I can't help but wonder though, by virtue of being open source does that instantly grant all of us the right to use a projects name, logo and artwork as we see fit? Throughout this thread i've seen a few comments along the lines of "Well they made ubuntu OSS, so they HAVE to support this new version" So does this mean that I can just use, say, Gentoo's logo and name and because of Gentoo being OSS they HAVE to support my project?

Well actually I just checked the ubuntu front page and appaerntly the term ubuntu is a registered trademark. This means that they are not bound by the GPL to allow you to use their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, just that they don't have to. They can very easily comply with the terms of the GPL just by letting you have access to the source and then completely washing their hands of the project

That is true. However, I contacted Canonical and got their permission under certain guidlines which I am following.
Jereme

spockrock
August 25th, 2006, 09:03 AM
yikes I cant believe I just read this whole thread. I am an atheist and believe that religion has had a very negative impact on human existence, god(s) was an early attempt by man to understand its surroundings. However that being said I believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on other people and people should be free to not believe in religion.

If someone wants to create their own ubuntu distro thats fine, I dont see what the big deal is considering that they aren't an 'official' Ubuntu release. Its not like chrisitan ubuntu, islam ubuntu or jewish ubuntu will ever be on the ubuntu website. The only objection I would have if this distro is packaged with some that is specifically hateful to a group of people, like homosexuals, polytheists for example. It seems from what I have read the person, sorry forgot your name its late, but is simply making a live disc that is installed with Christian software all ready in the repos. As long as the distro isn't evangelical and fundamentalist as if it were the brain child of Jerry Fawlwell/Pat Robinson, I dont see it being a stain on the ubuntu mark.

mhancoc7
August 25th, 2006, 09:53 AM
yikes I cant believe I just read this whole thread. I am an atheist and believe that religion has had a very negative impact on human existence, god(s) was an early attempt by man to understand its surroundings. However that being said I believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't infringe on other people and people should be free to not believe in religion.

If someone wants to create their own ubuntu distro thats fine, I dont see what the big deal is considering that they aren't an 'official' Ubuntu release. Its not like chrisitan ubuntu, islam ubuntu or jewish ubuntu will ever be on the ubuntu website. The only objection I would have if this distro is packaged with some that is specifically hateful to a group of people, like homosexuals, polytheists for example. It seems from what I have read the person, sorry forgot your name its late, but is simply making a live disc that is installed with Christian software all ready in the repos. As long as the distro isn't evangelical and fundamentalist as if it were the brain child of Jerry Fawlwell/Pat Robinson, I dont see it being a stain on the ubuntu mark.

Thank you for an honest and well thought out post. Also congratulations on reading the entire thread. I thought I was the only one that had done that.

The distro is not evangelical in nature at all. The idea is to simply have a distro geared towards Christians. When I say Christians I mean Protestants, Catholics, and so on. In fact I am studing to be Catholic.

It is funny how people so quickly jump to conclusions when someone says Christians. It kind of ticks me off because it seems a bit of a double standard. I mean, if I were to say things like all the people of a particular race, gender, or sexual preference are evil then I would be called intolerant and accused of "hate speech". However, when someone says the same thing about a Christian it is considered ok because they have a right to believe whatever they want. Of course I think it is wrong to make these kind of statements. I do not agree with homosexuality, but I do not think that homosexuals are evil and I do not wish them ill will. We all need to realize (Christians included) that we are all sharing the experience of life, and no matter what our beliefs we all share the condition of humanity.

Thanks, Jereme

finferflu
August 25th, 2006, 12:23 PM
However, when someone says the same thing about a Christian it is considered ok because they have a right to believe whatever they want. Of course I think it is wrong to make these kind of statements.

Sorry if I jump in just like that, but I've been following this thread for some weeks now. I've read this kind of statement more than once during this discussion and I think there is a particular reason why everybody gets upset when talking about Christianity. Christianity itself has for long time been an institution that dictated rights and wrongs (ie. the proper ethics). It is only natural that people who don't believe in such universals feel threatened by something that has been ruling (and still wants to) over everybody's life. The harsh response to Christianity is only a natural consequence to the aggressive Christian politics.

By the way, I'm a Christian too, not really a "standard" one, but I like the Christian teachings themselves, apart from the teachings of the institutions.

And, about Christian Ubuntu, I think it's good to spread the free software, even though I believe it would be nicer if people would be motivated to use it by the philosophy behind it, more than a mere Christian edition of it.

JReagan1990
August 25th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Dang. I read the entire thread as well. It is very interesting and apperntly a very touchy subject. But, anyways, I am a Christian, and really enjoy the Christian Edition (and a big thank-you to Jereme for taking on this project!:D ) I think it is a good option for Christian families who want both christian material and internet safety for their kids; not to mention a good option for churches. Now that we also know that it is not supported and won't be on the direct ubuntu site, the rant should slow down and eventually come to a halt. Everyone should (and are) completely free to make a version for their religion, and if they do, I wish them them the best for their project. Everyone should also find common ground on this issue. We are all part of this community, and should not be hurtful to one another when discussing a distro of a different religion.:)

There it is... my $0.02.

Kilz
August 25th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Sounds like a nice project. :D

RavenOfOdin
August 25th, 2006, 07:04 PM
It is funny how people so quickly jump to conclusions when someone says Christians. It kind of ticks me off because it seems a bit of a double standard. I mean, if I were to say things like all the people of a particular race, gender, or sexual preference are evil then I would be called intolerant and accused of "hate speech". However, when someone says the same thing about a Christian it is considered ok because they have a right to believe whatever they want. Of course I think it is wrong to make these kind of statements.


That isn't the half of it, but I see your point.

zubrug
August 25th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Can you not simply make a CE Linux or other name that does not hyjack this great communities achievment's.(leave ubuntu out of the name, it is a contradiction)
I believe this does put a "religous stain" (I would object to Hindu, Scientoligy etc. version's) on a great project.

Christian Edition Ubuntu = official version, no matter what the small print says.

dca
August 25th, 2006, 07:45 PM
This by far has been my favorite thread so far on the forum. I don't get if Canonical took the time to re-tool Ubuntu w/ the latest & greatest Christian software, why not also add bouncing crucifixes next to the mouse pointer when apps are loading??? I am by no means Anti-Christian, I'm Catholic by proxy. However, If Canonical wants to make a Christian Ed Ubuntu, then let them make one... Examples of other rejected ideas:

Ubuntu KiddyPornMaker Edition
Ubuntu Anti-Semite Edition
Ubuntu UNICEF Edition
Ubuntu Talibanny Edition

aysiu
August 25th, 2006, 07:53 PM
However, If Canonical wants to make a Christian Ed Ubuntu, then let them make one... Canonical isn't making this. Canonical is allowing this to be made.

KiwiNZ
August 25th, 2006, 07:55 PM
This by far has been my favorite thread so far on the forum. I don't get if Canonical took the time to re-tool Ubuntu w/ the latest & greatest Christian software, why not also add bouncing crucifixes next to the mouse pointer when apps are loading??? I am by no means Anti-Christian, I'm Catholic by proxy. However, If Canonical wants to make a Christian Ed Ubuntu, then let them make one... Examples of other rejected ideas:

Ubuntu KiddyPornMaker Edition
Ubuntu Anti-Semite Edition
Ubuntu UNICEF Edition
Ubuntu Talibanny Edition

This is not a Canonical project

dca
August 25th, 2006, 08:02 PM
Sorry... Allow... Authorize, maybe...

http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/Jesus_Linux_Ubuntu_Christian_Edition

The first reply when you open the link is the funniest...


It's not like a typical Ubuntu 6.06.1 error message looks something like this:

The G** D**N thing won't f**** mount (or)
ERROR Activating the G** D*** WiFi card on Eth1

Rhubarb
August 25th, 2006, 08:45 PM
There's some funny stuff there on that site (^above^).

Would Ununtu CE ban downloading / burning the normal Ubuntu .ISOs, as that would allow christian's kids to surf the web uncensored?

What about w32codecs and other such binaries or hacks?
Should Ubuntu CE lock the repositories down, or should that be a different edition, perhaps Ubuntu CCCE (Christian Clear Concious Edition)?

aysiu
August 25th, 2006, 08:47 PM
I think it all depends on how DansGuardian is set up.
http://dansguardian.org/

dca
August 25th, 2006, 08:51 PM
...oh, and by the by, what is Canonical's end result??? Is the purpose to provide enterprise solutions a'la Novell or what-ever with the RedHat & Fedora & SuSE et al, so-on?!? Is the goal to use whatever resources: developers, the knowledge of the people on the user forum, and etc to help produce an ultimate distro/solution that will only be avail to corporations purchasing the support-plan and leave an Ubuntu OPEN Ed for the rest??? I don't know, when I'm bored and drinking, these are things I think about... Oh and can't forget about the edition/distro dedicated solely to God...???

Kilz
August 25th, 2006, 09:58 PM
How about we have the atheist version. For those that deny the existence of anything but themselves.
I am all for the right of freedom of religion, including the right to have no religion. I am totally against the freedom from religion. To often the voice of those that want to limit people and what they want to believe is listened to. If you don't want to believe in anything, and want to drink yourself into oblivion, and live a live of sin. The choice is yours. I believe Canonical did the correct thing in not limiting what can be done with the software. Freedom should never exclude those that only want to better their lives.
I for one don't have the Christan edition, it isn't available as a 64bit version. But if it was I would seriously consider it.

OffHand
August 25th, 2006, 10:13 PM
If you don't want to believe in anything, and want to drink yourself into oblivion, and live a live of sin. The choice is yours.

Why should I drink myself into oblivion and live a live of sin because I do not believe in God? :confused:

RavenOfOdin
August 25th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Why should I drink myself into oblivion and live a live of sin because I do not believe in God? :confused:

You have freedom of choice. . .the freedom to align yourself with Evil, or Good. . .whether or not you choose to utilize it is anyone's guess. That goes for
everyone else on this planet. We weren't made to be robots.

If you don't want to drink yourself into oblivion, that's good, but the end result is still separation from God.

OffHand
August 25th, 2006, 10:33 PM
You have freedom of choice. . .the freedom to align yourself with Evil, or Good. . .whether or not you choose to utilize it is anyone's guess. That goes for
everyone else on this planet. We weren't made to be robots.

If you don't want to drink yourself into oblivion, that's good, but the end result is still separation from God.

Pfff please, don't get into this.

RavenOfOdin
August 25th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Pfff please, don't get into this.

You got into it, I simply answered your question.

KiwiNZ
August 25th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Anyone for coffee?

OffHand
August 25th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Anyone for coffee?

I need a tranqualizer. Coffee will only make things worse ;)

Kilz
August 25th, 2006, 11:35 PM
Why should I drink myself into oblivion and live a live of sin because I do not believe in God? :confused:

As pointed out, a life apart from God, Is a life of sin. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". So a life without God, is a life of sin. The drinking coment was in reference to


I don't know, when I'm bored and drinking, these are things I think about... Oh and can't forget about the edition/distro dedicated solely to God...???
Sorry I didnt quote it in my reply.


What makes anyone think that someone who uses a computer cant be a person of faith? :-k Or that a OS setup so that a Christan would find it usefull would be a bad thing?

finferflu
August 25th, 2006, 11:41 PM
As pointed out, a life apart from God, Is a life of sin. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". So a life without God, is a life of sin.

This is exactly what I've pointed out in my previous post. That's what makes people really upset about Christianity... And I'm expecting now an answer like "well, truth hurts", which is even more annoying...

OffHand
August 25th, 2006, 11:46 PM
As pointed out, a life apart from God, Is a life of sin. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". So a life without God, is a life of sin. Well, I suppose I am a sinner in that case. All I know is I am a pretty nice guy who cares about his environment on several levels. I can look myself in the eyes and that's all I care about really.
The drinking coment was in reference to


Sorry I didnt quote it in my reply.
Ah ok.

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 12:17 AM
This is exactly what I've pointed out in my previous post. That's what makes people really upset about Christianity... And I'm expecting now an answer like "well, truth hurts", which is even more annoying...

It's what I believe, if it upsets you. Then you have to ask yourself why it upsets you. Because if you didnt believe what Im saying is correct on some level it shouldnt upset you or anyone else. You should just blow me off and call me a nut, if you are sure I'm wrong.


Well, I suppose I am a sinner in that case. All I know is I am a pretty nice guy who cares about his environment on several levels. I can look myself in the eyes and that's all I care about really.
I hope you find faith, or faith finds you some day. :D

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 12:23 AM
Please to not break rule 1.

People are entitled to their beliefs, please remember that and remember the rules for this section.

finferflu
August 26th, 2006, 12:24 AM
Well, I was referring to my previous post. And all that I meant is written there. My concern was not to sigle you out, but just to take that instance as an example to explain my point better.

--EDIT--

Sorry, at the time I answered I couldn't see all the posts. I'm not saying anything about people's beliefs, as I pointed out in my first post, I was only giving my opinion about why Christianity (and in this case Christian Ubuntu) has upset so many people. I've also pointed out that I'm a Christian myself...

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Please to not break rule 1.

People are entitled to their beliefs, please remember that and remember the rules for this section.

No offence but:


To often the voice of those that want to limit people and what they want to believe is listened to. If you don't want to believe in anything, and want to drink yourself into oblivion, and live a live of sin. The choice is yours.




You have freedom of choice. . .the freedom to align yourself with Evil, or Good. . .whether or not you choose to utilize it is anyone's guess. That goes for
everyone else on this planet. We weren't made to be robots.

If you don't want to drink yourself into oblivion, that's good, but the end result is still separation from God.




As pointed out, a life apart from God, Is a life of sin. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". So a life without God, is a life of sin. The drinking coment was in reference to


are far more insulting than the post you quoted. They imply that every not religious person is evil and sinful, which results in breaking rule nr 1 completely. They also show the believe of people who don't respect other believes at all, no one from the "sinfull side" has EVER said that christian people are evil(edit: if I recall correctly, I might have missed some posts, though I doubt it).

So if you insist on intervention do it a bit fair and call the other side to rest as well? Perhaps this post should best be put in jail and/or resolution center, because this doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

If someone whishes to answer on the things I said do it in another thread. This thread is about ubuntu CE, and that it is not really clear that it is not supported nor developed by Canonical, judging by the reactions shown. This actually proves that this CE does leave a stain on ubuntu.

OffHand
August 26th, 2006, 12:44 AM
I hope you find faith, or faith finds you some day. :DThat will not happen but don't worry about me.

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 12:44 AM
Point taken Terrecotta,

Yes everyone needs to respect the beliefs of others.

jimmygoon
August 26th, 2006, 12:55 AM
The distro is not evangelical in nature at all.

I'm sorry but in my opinion, thats not possible. I may be opening a can of worms... and if you can't guess my personal beliefs... so be it... but I think its wrong to drag something through the mud like linux for the sake of a religion.

Come on. Whats the use of "Ubuntu Christian Edition". Are you going to tell me that the terminal included with regular ubuntu has the '$' and is therefore Pegan? If you want to install christian programs, then by all means INSTALL THEM. But why go out and make a "new" linux that not only shares the Ubuntu name... but touts the look and feel aside from a few programs?

I see no use for this aside from that which hundreds of years of history have shown us about Christianity... it needs propaganda and advertising to 'survive'.

At the same time, I respect your right and desire to create this, though I know not the purpose or the intentions, despite my judgemental ness.

As for my personal beliefs, its neither here nor there but after this post I feel like chiming in. I'm an undecided atheist. There is too much that science has to offer and prove on a daily basis that contradicts the bible on face value and in-depth and when it comes between a book and provable science... well you can guess which one I'm siding with. As for the people with the "connections"... I ask this: Why would a loving God decide not to reach out to me. I spend so much time looking for him, heck I even used to go to church every Sunday and pray and worship and all that and then I realized... what the heck am I doing... and I've been searching ever since.

You can tell me that you hope faith finds me... and I do hope that it does, but when thousands of people die a week due to violence about these 'Gods' and their differences.... I find it hard to accept.

Peace be with all, and someone or something bless us all.

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 01:01 AM
I'm sorry but in my opinion, thats not possible. I may be opening a can of worms... and if you can't guess my personal beliefs... so be it... but I think its wrong to drag something through the mud like linux for the sake of a religion.

Come on. Whats the use of "Ubuntu Christian Edition". Are you going to tell me that the terminal included with regular ubuntu has the '$' and is therefore Pegan? If you want to install christian programs, then by all means INSTALL THEM. But why go out and make a "new" linux that not only shares the Ubuntu name... but touts the look and feel aside from a few programs?

Oh no I'm gonna end up in heaven for this ](*,) but:
it is sometimes usefull to have live cd's (though the use of livecd's is overated imho), for example to go evangelical and try to persuade christians to linux, it's rather evangelical to change people to linux, rather than to christianity.

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 01:06 AM
@ jimmygoon

Whats NOT the use of it?

No one is forced to use it , its choice. And that is the point of FOSS , choice and its freedom.

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 01:20 AM
No offence but:
are far more insulting than the post you quoted. They imply that every not religious person is evil and sinful, which results in breaking rule nr 1 completely. They also show the believe of people who don't respect other believes at all, no one from the "sinfull side" has EVER said that christian people are evil(edit: if I recall correctly, I might have missed some posts, though I doubt it).

So if you insist on intervention do it a bit fair and call the other side to rest as well? Perhaps this post should best be put in jail and/or resolution center, because this doesn't have anything to do with this thread.
You have misinterpted what I said. I sad everyone has sined. That includes christian people. You also jumbled up 2 diffrent people without stating who made the posts to prove a point. I never said evil.


If someone whishes to answer on the things I said do it in another thread. This thread is about ubuntu CE, and that it is not really clear that it is not supported nor developed by Canonical, judging by the reactions shown. This actually proves that this CE does leave a stain on ubuntu.

That the Christan Edition isnt on the Canonical web site kind of shows that it isnt developed by Canonical.

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 01:24 AM
@ jimmygoon

Whats NOT the use of it?

No one is forced to use it , its choice. And that is the point of FOSS , choice and its freedom.

Because the people who are strongly against the edition are self proclaimed athiests. They want freedom from any religion. It dosnt have to be forced , just that it is. Just like the removal of other religious symbols from our society.

Redcard
August 26th, 2006, 01:26 AM
Because the people who are strongly against the edition are self proclaimed athiests. They want freedom from any religion. It dosnt have to be forced , just that it is. Just like the removal of other religious symbols from our society.

That's NICE. They have it.

They don't have the freedom to remove it from other people's lives, though.

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 01:31 AM
Because the people who are strongly against the edition are self proclaimed athiests. They want freedom from any religion. It dosnt have to be forced , just that it is. Just like the removal of other religious symbols from our society.

Then they are against freedom.
If they are against freedom why do they use FOSS?

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 01:35 AM
Then they are against freedom.
If they are against freedom why do they use FOSS?

That is a good question. I think because they want to have freedom from. Freedom from Windows. Freedom from viruses, freedom from spyware. But FOSS exists to also give freedom to. Freedom to use the code. freedom to distribute. Freedom to make changes.
The people who are against the Christan editions are free to start their own distro and put it under whatever license they want. But it wouldnt be FOSS if they restricted who could do what with it.

spockrock
August 26th, 2006, 04:00 AM
Again I would like to point out alot of people are lumping groups together. I am an atheist I, choose to be an atheist as not to be a slave to an idea of an all powerful being(s). People telling me how to live my life. Like I pointed out I have no qualms with the distro, as long is its not evangelical, and oppressive to other individuals. And yes you can be Christian and not be evangelical, I have Christian friends who dont think homosexuality is wrong, and dont think I am forever banished to hell for not believing in Jesus and the holy trinity.

This distribution can be Christian and non evangelical. Before people start blasting groups of people, maybe we all should step back and look at our own actions? I am referring to both Christians and atheists.


about the removal of religious symbols in society, in a 'public' area, such as a government building there shouldn't be religious symbols, if there are then you had better accommodate every religious group, and that would be slightly absurd, of course I am speaking in a vast multicultural society like here in Canada, or the US.

jimmygoon
August 26th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Oh no I'm gonna end up in heaven for this ](*,) but:
it is sometimes usefull to have live cd's (though the use of livecd's is overated imho), for example to go evangelical and try to persuade christians to linux, it's rather evangelical to change people to linux, rather than to christianity.

I agree. I had not thought of that. Thats a very good idea... now if we just had a tool that would let anyone create a live disc (easily)


@ jimmygoon

Whats NOT the use of it?

No one is forced to use it , its choice. And that is the point of FOSS , choice and its freedom.

Like I said, I respect that choice... but at the same time, I firmly believe that this will be more effective as a form of evangilism than a legitimate contribution (aside from the livecd which is completely understandable). Note that I never said it shouldn't be allowed... only that I doubt the true main motive... or that thats how this project will truly be perceived. Like I intended before, I'm sure the creator had good intentions but to me and surely to others it will reflect badly upon ubuntu because of the close resemblence.

This all having been said, it would probably be a great way to introduce one of my reluctant-xp-user-church-goer to try out ubuntu :D

jimmygoon
August 26th, 2006, 06:07 AM
Oh Come ON!

I just read the other comments on the top of this thread and I hate to make such an early exit but I can already see right where this is headed. I was bold enough to say that I was atheist... so now I hate everyone who has a religion... I hate OSS.... I hate FOSS and I hate this just because it says "Christian".

I explained myself. I explained specifically why I believed that while this is an okay idea and it shouldn't be stopped... that ultimatly it will act as a form of evangilism and it will reflect poorly upon ubuntu. Its sad that it your attempts to slander me and what I said... it only makes you guys look more rude.


Did I say I don't want this? Look in my measly three posts... If I did, then have my apologizes because that is not what I meant. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you kept your sweeping statements to yourselves.

RavenOfOdin
August 26th, 2006, 08:16 AM
if there are then you had better accommodate every religious group, and that would be slightly absurd, of course I am speaking in a vast multicultural
society like here in Canada, or the US.

IMHO, these two bolded areas signify exactly the same kinds of attitudes that have sent the USA downhill in certain areas such as social climate.

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Oh Come ON!

I just read the other comments on the top of this thread and I hate to make such an early exit but I can already see right where this is headed. I was bold enough to say that I was atheist... so now I hate everyone who has a religion... I hate OSS.... I hate FOSS and I hate this just because it says "Christian".

I explained myself. I explained specifically why I believed that while this is an okay idea and it shouldn't be stopped... that ultimatly it will act as a form of evangilism and it will reflect poorly upon ubuntu. Its sad that it your attempts to slander me and what I said... it only makes you guys look more rude.


Did I say I don't want this? Look in my measly three posts... If I did, then have my apologizes because that is not what I meant. Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you kept your sweeping statements to yourselves.

Don't get upset :), most people tend to use the word discrimination and hate too easily whenever objections are being made on something they like. It's a common thing every human suffers from 8-[ . I've tried to explain that most objections are not ment to stop any christian project at all, but are mostly ment to try to make them go another way than the live CD/seperate-distro-with-still-the-same-name-in-it. During this proces ones words tend to get misused and misinterpret all the time :cry: .

nalmeth
August 26th, 2006, 08:28 AM
now if we just had a tool that would let anyone create a live disc (easily)
http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 08:46 AM
You have misinterpted what I said. I sad everyone has sined. That includes christian people. You also jumbled up 2 diffrent people without stating who made the posts to prove a point. I never said evil.



That the Christan Edition isnt on the Canonical web site kind of shows that it isnt developed by Canonical.

My point was that the forum staff member shouldn't take sides, which he was doing, or it seemed to me like he was doing so, he aknowledged it corrected himself and moved on. Sorry that I missused your words but I find them very insulting and quite restrictive and unrespectfull towards other beings and oppinions. You may never have said evil someone else did and I never claimed you did (which is why I picked some random rantings so I wouldn't pick anyone out, and which is why I didn't put your names on the quotes because who wrote it was irrelevant).

I know Ubuntu CE is not backed up by Canonical, many others do, but many others don't. The mere fact that this conversion pops up every few times a month shows that there are people that do think it is backed up by Canonical.Now Canonical has the right to decide what happens with the branding, yes, but I was mere stating that the fact that they chose to keep Ubuntu in the name is causing the misinterpretations and hence leaving a stain on ubuntu. Whether something is or is not part of it doesn't matter, whether people should change their actions because some people can't read, or don't feel like reading or doing some research on the matter, is another different story, but if the creator didn't want to get this much objection he should have used another name.

Jerome36
August 26th, 2006, 09:03 AM
I'd just like to say I am a Christian, and I'm all for any project that will get more people using Ubuntu. If someone wants to create a SatanistUbuntu or a MormonUbuntu or an AtheistUbuntu or a MuslimUbuntu or a MotorcyclistsUbuntu or a BallerinasUbuntu... go for it. More power to you.

I'm all for Jewbuntu! :)

OffHand
August 26th, 2006, 09:05 AM
IMHO, these two bolded areas signify exactly the same kinds of attitudes that have sent the USA downhill in certain areas such as social climate.

He is just stating facts dude. We are living in a multiculturale society.
What are you on about?

peabody
August 26th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Now Canonical has the right to decide what happens with the branding, yes, but I was mere stating that the fact that they chose to keep Ubuntu in the name is causing the misinterpretations and hence leaving a stain on ubuntu.

You know, this is a point I'm interested in. I know firefox logos and name are copyrighted. What about the Ubuntu branding? I can make a fork of Emacs and call it Emacs. Which is confusing, so most people would probably call it peabody Emacs. But I can call it Emacs. I can't fork firefox and call it firefox though. How much control does Ubuntu ceed to it's branding? That does seem to be the central issue. Can I fork Ubuntu and call it Ubuntu?

That said, I'm all for the Christian edition even though I'm an agnostic myself.

I'm sort of surprised no one's stepped up with the atheist addition yet :) .

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 11:50 AM
You know, this is a point I'm interested in. I know firefox logos and name are copyrighted. What about the Ubuntu branding? I can make a fork of Emacs and call it Emacs. Which is confusing, so most people would probably call it peabody Emacs. But I can call it Emacs. I can't fork firefox and call it firefox though. How much control does Ubuntu ceed to it's branding? That does seem to be the central issue. Can I fork Ubuntu and call it Ubuntu?

That said, I'm all for the Christian edition even though I'm an agnostic myself.

I'm sort of surprised no one's stepped up with the atheist addition yet :) .

I understand your point.

I never liked the whole (k)(x)(ed)ubuntu thing. I mean to me it is more confusing and really not very consistent or descriptive. It was always my opinion that they should be "Editions". Like "Ubuntu KDE Edition" or "Ubuntu Education Edition". When I decided to start my project I decided to go with "Ubuntu Christian Edition". I contacted Canonical about my project and let them view the project site before I released it. They gave me some guidelines that included not modifying the Ubuntu logo. They also asked me to make a few changes to the project site which I did.

I believe that Canonical truly understands the philosophies behind OSS and they are willing to allow the use of their name and logo as long as it is not defaming Ubuntu or Canonical. Now I know that many believe that the fact that it is a Christian product that it is defaming or a "stain" on Ubuntu, but the fact is that 1/3 of the worlds population is Christian. I have also not filled Ubuntu CE with anything that could be viewed as intolerant.

I hope we can just move on. I mean they made their decision and I am going to continue with the project. I haven't seen a truly new argument against Ubuntu CE since I first mentioned it on the forum. They are all just the same arguments that should be exhausted or "knee-jerk" reactions to the fact that the project is Christian. I mean if Canonical is allowing it shouldn't we all just accept it and let it be?

Jereme

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 12:00 PM
I understand your point.

I never liked the whole (k)(x)(ed)ubuntu thing. I mean to me it is more confusing and really not very consistent or descriptive. It was always my opinion that they should be "Editions". Like "Ubuntu KDE Edition" or "Ubuntu Education Edition". When I decided to start my project I decided to go with "Ubuntu Christian Edition". I contacted Canonical about my project and let them view the project site before I released it. They gave me some guidelines that included not modifying the Ubuntu logo. They also asked me to make a few changes to the project site which I did.

I believe that Canonical truly understands the philosophies behind OSS and they are willing to allow the use of their name and logo as long as it is not defaming Ubuntu or Canonical. Now I know that many believe that the fact that it is a Christian product that it is defaming or a "stain" on Ubuntu, but the fact is that 1/3 of the worlds population is Christian. I have also not filled Ubuntu CE with anything that could be viewed as intolerant.

I hope we can just move on. I mean they made their decision and I am going to continue with the project. I haven't seen a truly new argument against Ubuntu CE since I first mentioned it on the forum. They are all just the same arguments that should be exhausted or "knee-jerk" reactions to the fact that the project is Christian. I mean if Canonical is allowing it shouldn't we all just accept it and let it be?

Jereme

Mhm, there's a diffeerence between OSS and trademarks/branding/... Understanding opensource software doesn't have anything to do with allowing your brand/naming to be used/not used. But you are right no real new arguments pass by anymore, where are the times :rolleyes: .

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 12:07 PM
Mhm, there's a diffeerence between OSS and trademarks/branding/... Understanding opensource software doesn't have anything to do with allowing your brand/naming to be used/not used. But you are right no real new arguments pass by anymore, where are the times :rolleyes: .

Yes, I know that there is a difference between OSS and trademarks. I am just saying that Ubuntu (the OS) is Open Source and the owners of its copyright appear to believe in Open Source and are willing to allow the use of their copyrighted logo and name to continue the spread of OSS. My main point was just that it is theirs to decide how it is used and they are allowing me to use it in this way. We should all just respect their decision and quite recycling this argument.

Jereme

egon spengler
August 26th, 2006, 03:39 PM
It's what I believe, if it upsets you. Then you have to ask yourself why it upsets you. Because if you didnt believe what Im saying is correct on some level it shouldnt upset you or anyone else. You should just blow me off and call me a nut, if you are sure I'm wrong.

Really? So if I decide to add "Kilz is a known sexual predator" to my sig it wouldn't upset you to any degree because you kow that it isn't true?



I hope you find faith, or faith finds you some day. :D

This is precisely the kind of thing that gives anti religous people their ammunition. I say this as a religous person myself, you need to understand that faith is defined as believing something that you can't prove to be true. Please don't make yourself look stupid by saying that you can prove god exists because if you could you would have undermined the whole concept of the Abrahamic religions in that you're rewarded for faith in the afterlife. If there was proof available then everyone would believe (or rather, they would "know") and then there would be no point in this test.

Now seeing as you can't prove god exists you should drop this haughty attitude and accept that others may be unlike us and just simply not have any faith. Just let them be, I sincerly doubt you have any real concern for his spiritual wellbeing, it's just your way of being obnoxious



My point was that the forum staff member shouldn't take sides, which he was doing, or it seemed to me like he was doing so, he aknowledged it corrected himself and moved on.

Not really, he is clearly still taking sides. Somehow in his mind an individual wanting to be free from religion is anti freedom and should not be using FLOSS. How this amazing logic works I doubt I will ever be privy to

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 03:51 PM
Not really, he is clearly still taking sides. Somehow in his mind an individual wanting to be free from religion is anti freedom and should not be using FLOSS. How this amazing logic works I doubt I will ever be privy to

An atheist being free of religion is fine, but that should not mean that I as a Christian can't express my faith. I mean what if I said I want to be free from atheism would that mean that all the atheist forums online should not exist or atheist should never tell anyone that they are atheist. This idea that somehow I should give up the right to express my faith so people who do not believe what I do is completely absurd. Now I am not suggesting that Christians have the right to push their faith on anyone, I just don't believe that we have to hide our heads in the sand out of fear that atheists will be offended that we believe in God.

Jereme

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 05:08 PM
An atheist being free of religion is fine, but that should not mean that I as a Christian can't express my faith. I mean what if I said I want to be free from atheism would that mean that all the atheist forums online should not exist or atheist should never tell anyone that they are atheist. This idea that somehow I should give up the right to express my faith so people who do not believe what I do is completely absurd. Now I am not suggesting that Christians have the right to push their faith on anyone, I just don't believe that we have to hide our heads in the sand out of fear that atheists will be offended that we believe in God.

Jereme

Has anyone attacked you for your believes, or did they attack your actions? I think the latter is what happened.

egon spengler
August 26th, 2006, 05:13 PM
An atheist being free of religion is fine, but that should not mean that I as a Christian can't express my faith.

I 100% agree with this. The exchange I was refering to however went like this:

Poster: "some people want freedom from religion"
Moderator: "Well then those people are against freedom, why do they use FLOSS?"

So seeing as you agree with me that an individual wanting freedom from religion is well within their rights this seems like an odd comment does it not?

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 05:17 PM
Really? So if I decide to add "Kilz is a known sexual predator" to my sig it wouldn't upset you to any degree because you kow that it isn't true?
Its possible it would upset me, but it would upset me because of a constant defimation by one person. My one quote of romans 10:13 dose not duplicate its self constantly and appear in mutiple places. If you are going to post it in one place, I would blow you off.
Also to me, I have a basis for saying what I have said. You may not agree with it. But there are reasons for my beliefes. Are you saying there is a book you could quote that out of?



This is precisely the kind of thing that gives anti religous people their ammunition. I say this as a religous person myself, you need to understand that faith is defined as believing something that you can't prove to be true. Please don't make yourself look stupid by saying that you can prove god exists because if you could you would have undermined the whole concept of the Abrahamic religions in that you're rewarded for faith in the afterlife. If there was proof available then everyone would believe (or rather, they would "know") and then there would be no point in this test.
Now seeing as you can't prove god exists you should drop this haughty attitude and accept that others may be unlike us and just simply not have any faith. Just let them be, I sincerly doubt you have any real concern for his spiritual wellbeing, it's just your way of being obnoxious
So as a religious person you should know that as a Christan I should speak of God and testify. "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,"
I honestly hope that everyone can find faith. Maybe now isnt the time it will happen for some people. But I do hope it happens.


Not really, he is clearly still taking sides. Somehow in his mind an individual wanting to be free from religion is anti freedom and should not be using FLOSS. How this amazing logic works I doubt I will ever be privy to

When you try and restrict what someone can do with FOSS , no matter if you think its correct. This makes you anti FOSS.

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 05:17 PM
Has anyone attacked you for your believes, or did they attack your actions? I think the latter is what happened.

There have been quite a number of posts that were blatantly attacking Christianity. That is not to say that there were not many that did not like it for other reasons.

Besides what exactly were my actions? The way I see it my actions were perfectly acceptable being that I asked permission from the owners of the copyrighted material and I followed the philosophy of OSS to produce a customized version of the best Linux distro available.

I mean what about Medical Ubuntu. What if there were a large number of members of the Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) church. Since they do not believe in conventional medicine should the existence of Medical Ubuntu upset them. Are they "entitled" to a world free of such "mind control" as medical science. This is the argument that seems to be coming from many of the atheist's posts. They want freedom from religion at the expense of my right to express my faith.

Am I missing something?

Jereme

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 05:22 PM
I 100% agree with this. The exchange I was refering to however went like this:

Poster: "some people want freedom from religion"
Moderator: "Well then those people are against freedom, why do they use FLOSS?"

So seeing as you agree with me that an individual wanting freedom from religion is well within their rights this seems like an odd comment does it not?

Since you quoted me. The athiest can have freedom of religion, meaning they can choose to have any religion or none at all. They cant have freedom from because that would take away my freedom of religion.
I also think it was a question from the mod asking me to explain my statment. Not that the mod agreed with me.

egon spengler
August 26th, 2006, 05:30 PM
Its possible it would upset me, but it would upset me because of a constant defimation by one person.

Really? Even though it's just my belief? Maybe there's something wrong with you that my belief offends you


I honestly hope that everyone can find faith. Maybe now isnt the time it will happen for some people. But I do hope it happens.

I think that more honestly what you are hoping for is for everyone to think like you. You're not hoping that people find what's right for them and what makes them a better person. In fact I'm sure they could even become the "wrong" kind of christian for your liking


When you try and restrict what someone can do with FOSS , no matter if you think its correct. This makes you anti FOSS.

Except that what you originally voiced your umbrage with was people hoping to live their life without religion. Something entirely unrelated to FLOSS. Every single day of my life I live my life free from Hinduism and Scientology and I would resist any attempts to make either faith have any influence over me, I don't consider that anti freedom or anti FLOSS

egon spengler
August 26th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Since you quoted me. The athiest can have freedom of religion, meaning they can choose to have any religion or none at all. They cant have freedom from because that would take away my freedom of religion.
I also think it was a question from the mod asking me to explain my statment. Not that the mod agreed with me.


Well maybe you just have a strange understanding of the definition of the word "from". I'm sure that you will find that in 99 instances out of 100 when some says something like "I want to be free from ______" that simply means that they wish to live without ______ intefering in their lives. I don't think I've ever heard "free from" meaning "obliterate from the planet"

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Really? Even though it's just my belief? Maybe there's something wrong with you that my belief offends you I would ignore one post. I also dought the mods would alow you to di it.

I think that more honestly what you are hoping for is for everyone to think like you. You're not hoping that people find what's right for them and what makes them a better person. In fact I'm sure they could even become the "wrong" kind of christian for your liking I believe everyone has a right to believe in what they want to. Just as I have a right to believe in what I want to. That would not stop me from hoping that they find faith if they have none.

Except that what you originally voiced your umbrage with was people hoping to live their life without religion. Something entirely unrelated to FLOSS. Every single day of my life I live my life free from Hinduism and Scientology and I would resist any attempts to make either faith have any influence over me, I don't consider that anti freedom or anti FLOSS

It would be if you tried to stop Scientology Ubuntu or Hindu Ubuntu. You would have to install those versions for them to have influence on or over you. Just as you wont have to install Christan Ubuntu, so it will not have influence unless you choose to install it. That is a freedom of choice.

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Well maybe you just have a strange understanding of the definition of the word "from". I'm sure that you will find that in 99 instances out of 100 when some says something like "I want to be free from ______" that simply means that they wish to live without ______ intefering in their lives. I don't think I've ever heard "free from" meaning "obliterate from the planet"

They dont have to have it in their lives unless they choose. Thats a freedom of. They dont have a freedom from. There is no law of a freedom from. Thats just it, some people what to obliterate Ubuntu Christan Edition.

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 06:08 PM
There have been quite a number of posts that were blatantly attacking Christianity. That is not to say that there were not many that did not like it for other reasons.

must have missed those, most attacked actions performed by christian people in the past, rather than christianity as a religion. But perhaps because I'm not one from the 'attacked' group that I interpret things differently and don't pay enough attention to them.



Besides what exactly were my actions? The way I see it my actions were perfectly acceptable being that I asked permission from the owners of the copyrighted material and I followed the philosophy of OSS to produce a customized version of the best Linux distro available.

You're actions are completely legal and following the rules and therefor correct. That doesn't mean though that creating a seperate distro and linking it to ubuntu(the name) won't upset people. As I see it these rants wouldn't pop up if you had:

either created a third party project like automatix
or gone completely different like mepis (as in: it's based on it uses same repos but different name...)

You've made your choice and are entitled to do so, but it's the fact that you created a christian ubuntu version linked so obviously to ubuntu that causes the problems, not the fact that you're creating a christian linux distro. (no I'm not trying to go technical again, things have been decided, I'm just trying to explain what (IMHO) is causing these rants to pop up rather than making you change your mind).



I mean what about Medical Ubuntu. What if there were a large number of members of the Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) church. Since they do not believe in conventional medicine should the existence of Medical Ubuntu upset them. Are they "entitled" to a world free of such "mind control" as medical science. This is the argument that seems to be coming from many of the atheist's posts. They want freedom from religion at the expense of my right to express my faith.


Personally I feel the same way about Medical Ubuntu as about Ubuntu CE, it's best solved as a third party project. But apparently Canonical want it to be this way.



Am I missing something?

Jereme
I don't know, I'm no god :mrgreen: (euh ok, was a joke)

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 06:11 PM
must have missed those, most attacked actions performed by christian people in the past, rather than christianity as a religion. But perhaps because I'm not one from the 'attacked' group that I interpret things differently and don't pay enough attention to them.


You're actions are completely legal and following the rules and therefor correct. That doesn't mean though that creating a seperate distro and linking it to ubuntu(the name) won't upset people. As I see it these rants wouldn't pop up if you had:

either created a third party project like automatix
or gone completely different like mepis (as in: it's based on it uses same repos but different name...)

You've made your choice and are entitled to do so, but it's the fact that you created a christian ubuntu version linked so obviously to ubuntu that causes the problems, not the fact that you're creating a christian linux distro. (no I'm not trying to go technical again, things have been decided, I'm just trying to explain what (IMHO) is causing these rants to pop up rather than making you change your mind).



Personally I feel the same way about Medical Ubuntu as about Ubuntu CE, it's best solved as a third party project. But apparently Canonical want it to be this way.


I don't know, I'm no god :mrgreen: (euh ok, was a joke)

Fair enough. :D

Jereme

dusanyu
August 26th, 2006, 06:13 PM
my thoughts on this whole "christan eddition"

I have yet to see a lagitamate argument on why there needs to be a speshalised distro and not a automatix like shell script. only 1 reason has been listed "mission trip" now i am going to save my retorict about distruction of native cultures and religions. and how suporting sayed things should not be supported by distrobuton that clames to be "linux for Human beings" :-\"

however given the cirnstances we cant ignore the fact that most christions think that these missions and the resulting in the disruction and and illrepubatable harm to Native cultures. is some sort of "devine duty"

the fact is evin this Mission trip problem can be worked around. create a automatix like script with all of the packages included on one cd. that way you can still have your"cristian ubuntu" but not make yourself stand out.

well we as the ubuntu comunity do have an alternitive to this parady and Satire. all those who think that this "chritian Eddition" is popycock i urge you to satire it.

as such as of today in the true hacker traditon of Ha Ha only serious i prepose a new "eddition" Ubuntu Sub-genious edditon: a version of ubuntu that gives you alot of slack and more J.R. Bob Dobbs than you can handle!

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 06:19 PM
That is a good question. I think because they want to have freedom from. Freedom from Windows. Freedom from viruses, freedom from spyware. But FOSS exists to also give freedom to. Freedom to use the code. freedom to distribute. Freedom to make changes.
The people who are against the Christan editions are free to start their own distro and put it under whatever license they want. But it wouldnt be FOSS if they restricted who could do what with it.

No one can ever stop someone from forking anything that's under the GPL licence. Only names and brands and links can be restricted. And restricting names, brands and links is NOT against FOSS.

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 06:20 PM
my thoughts on this whole "christan eddition"

I have yet to see a lagitamate argument on why there needs to be a speshalised distro and not a automatix like shell script. only 1 reason has been listed "mission trip" now i am going to save my retorict about distruction of native cultures and religions. and how suporting sayed things should not be supported by distrobuton that clames to be "linux for Human beings" :-\"

however given the cirnstances we cant ignore the fact that most christions think that these missions and the resulting in the disruction and and illrepubatable harm to Native cultures. is some sort of "devine duty"

the fact is evin this Mission trip problem can be worked around. create a automatix like script with all of the packages included on one cd. that way you can still have your"cristian ubuntu" but not make yourself stand out.

well we as the ubuntu comunity do have an alternitive to this parady and Satire. all those who think that this "chritian Eddition" is popycock i urge you to satire it.

as such as of today in the true hacker traditon of Ha Ha only serious i prepose a new "eddition" Ubuntu Sub-genious edditon: a version of ubuntu that gives you alot of slack and more J.R. Bob Dobbs than you can handle!

Well, there really does not have to be a need. There only needs to be a desire. I mean some could argue, "What is the need for Ubuntu when there is Debian", or even worse, "What is the need for Linux when there is Windows". I had the desire to create Ubuntu Christian Edition, and many have proven the need by downloading it and converting to it.

Satire is fine. In fact when done properly it can be very flattering. There is a big difference between satire and bashing though. So go ahead and Satire it, but please be sure to let others know what you are joking about so they can find out about Ubuntu CE. I mean even all the bashing is just more exposure for my project. :biggrin:

Jereme

mhancoc7
August 26th, 2006, 06:23 PM
No one can ever stop someone from forking anything that's under the GPL licence. Only names and brands and links can be restricted. And restricting names, brands and links is NOT against FOSS.

Your are absolutely correct, however Canonical has given me permission so it really is a moot point.

Jereme

finferflu
August 26th, 2006, 07:36 PM
Just to see if the whole problem lays into the label of this project, or in the nature of it: does anyone feel hurt by Ichthux (http://www.ichthux.com)? It's a kind of "Kubuntu CE".

I also believe the real problem lays into the label...

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Just to clear things up about my posts...

Ubuntu uses Linux.. Linux is part of FOSS..FOSS is about freedom of software,, UbuntuCE uses that freedom .

My posts have nothing to do with religious dogma.

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Just to see if the whole problem lays into the label of this project, or in the nature of it: does anyone feel hurt by Ichthux (http://www.ichthux.com)? It's a kind of "Kubuntu CE".

I also believe the real problem lays into the label...

I kinda agree with you ;-), but it could also be because no one knows about this distro but still: \\:D/ .

edit: Deleted some unnecesary things.

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 08:59 PM
Just to clear things up about my posts...

Ubuntu uses Linux.. Linux is part of FOSS..FOSS is about freedom of software,, UbuntuCE uses that freedom .

My posts have nothing to do with religious dogma.
Trademarks and FOSS don't necesarily relate to each other. Putting restrictions on your trademark doesn't make one understad FOSS less than allowing his trademark to be used, like Canonical has done. ( I do know canonical has given permission, I was just hypothetical speaking).

KiwiNZ
August 26th, 2006, 09:08 PM
Can we have a sum up from those who are opposed to Ubuntu CE and those who are pro Ubuntu CE their reasons for their position.

Can we restrict to say no more than 5 key bullet points.

Redcard
August 26th, 2006, 09:16 PM
For it.


Free Open Source Software means that
Canonical has given permission
It is a clear untapped market, full of people who are illegally using Microsoft software everyday
It is respectful of other distributions/editions of linux and ubuntu
It allows more software to reach further under the GPL

Terracotta
August 26th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Canonical doesn't have to give permission the gpl requires the source to be open and freely available.

Pro:
- Can be used as live cd to show
- Cleaner: everything is installed no need to desinstall some not needed/wanted stuff.
- Canonical has the rights on the trademarks so it's their job to decide whether or not they bless it, which they did.

Contra:
- The use of Live-cd's is overated, it shows a slow version of ubuntu, memory stick and/or laptop to show it does a way better job (as in: not giving it a bad name of being slow). (but is more expensiv), a live-cd is a nice rescue system, nothing more.
- Metapackage in the repos or automatix solution would suffice the needs.
- Naming scheme leads to confusion whether it is or is not an official ubuntu derivative, although it's stated on its website, people don't read a lot so naming is essential.

6 Key points, and way too much text :-k .

finferflu
August 26th, 2006, 10:05 PM
I would like to state my opinion in this way:

Pros:

-It gives people more chance to get in touch with Linux and Free Software


Cons:

-It makes people feel like anything else isn't good enough: the label "linux for christians" (as in www.linuxforchristians.com) implies in a certain way that linux as default is for non-christians, thus: sinful, wicked, and so on.. Not that the website does not specify the very good features of free software, but where is the need to give the Christian adjective? The free software philosophy should be adopted by Christianity, rather than free software adopting Christianity.

Kilz
August 26th, 2006, 10:57 PM
For it.


Free Open Source Software means that
Canonical has given permission
It is a clear untapped market, full of people who are illegally using Microsoft software everyday
It is respectful of other distributions/editions of linux and ubuntu
It allows more software to reach further under the GPL


Nice list :KS

JReagan1990
August 27th, 2006, 02:43 AM
Pro:

- good for Christian families
- good for churches,
- good for kids (internet protection)
- ready-to-go for christians
- good study tools pre-packaged

aktiwers
August 27th, 2006, 07:34 AM
Just to see if the whole problem lays into the label of this project, or in the nature of it: does anyone feel hurt by Ichthux (http://www.ichthux.com)? It's a kind of "Kubuntu CE".

I also believe the real problem lays into the label...

The only problem I see here, is the use of the UBUNTU name and brand. I know he has been given permission to create the CE, and that fact alone tells us that there is no problem.

However one has the right to dissagree about the rightness of using the Ubuntu name and brand for a CE. One has the Freedom to express why, without being placed on the same road as people who bash Christianity.

I am one of them.

If the only purpose is to spread Linux to Christians, why the big need to use the Ubuntu Name and brand when so many people are against it?

bcw
August 27th, 2006, 08:33 AM
I can choose to do my utmost to do what The Christ told me to do. ("Christ" is a title, so there must be a "The"). But I don't decide if I fulfill that - The Christ does, and only The Christ can.

For me to say "this is Christian, and this is not" is a dangerous delusion - I don't have that judgement - it isn't given to me.

For Canonical to lend their name to a group that wants to associate it with their judgement of what is and isn't "Christian" is discriminatory, about a matter they (both Canonical and the group) are not involved in. This is an unwise association, and use of their name for endorsement of a judgement they are not in a position to make. Canonical should avoid any such associations.

I don't agree that these people are following the principles The Christ taught, and I am just as much a child of God and an inheritor of God's creation as they are, so my judgement carries as much weight. Only The Christ has more authority - in fact I would say the only authority in this matter.

Allowing the Ubuntu name to be associated with this discriminatory judgement (THIS is "Christian" and WE get to decide!) is supporting worldly arrogance. No one needs t-shirts saying "Christian" to actually do as The Christ said to do. It's not about what other people think, so labels are worldly and irrelevant.

Shame on Canonical for allowing themselves to be associated with this judgemental, discriminatory project!

Regards,
Bret

aktiwers
August 27th, 2006, 08:39 AM
I can choose to do my utmost to do what The Christ told me to do. ("Christ" is a title, so there must be a "The"). But I don't decide if I fulfill that - The Christ does, and only The Christ can.

For me to say "this is Christian, and this is not" is a dangerous delusion - I don't have that judgement - it isn't given to me.

For Canonical to lend their name to a group that wants to associate it with their judgement of what is and isn't "Christian" is discriminatory, about a matter they (both Canonical and the group) are not involved in. This is an unwise association, and use of their name for endorsement of a judgement they are not in a position to make. Canonical should avoid any such associations.

I don't agree that these people are following the principles The Christ taught, and I am just as much a child of God and an inheritor of God's creation as they are, so my judgement carries as much weight. Only The Christ has more authority - in fact I would say the only authority in this matter.

Allowing the Ubuntu name to be associated with this discriminatory judgement (THIS is "Christian" and WE get to decide!) is supporting worldly arrogance. No one needs t-shirts saying "Christian" to actually do as The Christ said to do. It's not about what other people think, so labels are worldly and irrelevant.

Shame on Canonical for allowing themselves to be associated with this judgemental, discriminatory project!

Regards,
Bret

I agree!

aysiu
August 27th, 2006, 09:00 AM
Ubuntu CE isn't claiming to judge who is a true follower of "the Christ" or not. It's simply trying to provide tools that may be useful to a lot of self-proclaimed Christians.

If you want to go on with silly banter about semantics and that entertains you, you won't be helping anybody--sorry. But if someone creates a modified Ubuntu distro with software tailored to a group of users' needs, then good for that person... who actually is helping someone.

mhancoc7
August 27th, 2006, 09:12 AM
I can choose to do my utmost to do what The Christ told me to do. ("Christ" is a title, so there must be a "The"). But I don't decide if I fulfill that - The Christ does, and only The Christ can.

For me to say "this is Christian, and this is not" is a dangerous delusion - I don't have that judgement - it isn't given to me.

For Canonical to lend their name to a group that wants to associate it with their judgement of what is and isn't "Christian" is discriminatory, about a matter they (both Canonical and the group) are not involved in. This is an unwise association, and use of their name for endorsement of a judgement they are not in a position to make. Canonical should avoid any such associations.

I don't agree that these people are following the principles The Christ taught, and I am just as much a child of God and an inheritor of God's creation as they are, so my judgement carries as much weight. Only The Christ has more authority - in fact I would say the only authority in this matter.

Allowing the Ubuntu name to be associated with this discriminatory judgement (THIS is "Christian" and WE get to decide!) is supporting worldly arrogance. No one needs t-shirts saying "Christian" to actually do as The Christ said to do. It's not about what other people think, so labels are worldly and irrelevant.

Shame on Canonical for allowing themselves to be associated with this judgemental, discriminatory project!

Regards,
Bret

Excuse me if this sounds rude, but get off your high horse. I am not judging anyone with my project. To take my work and make it sound as if I am trying to claim the power to determine what is and isn't Christian offends me deeply.

The only need to use the title "Christian Edition" is let those interested know what the project is about. What would you have me put "Linux with tools to study the Bible, not necessarily to say that these tools would or would not be endorsed by Jesus, just that they are what is available Edition". It doesn't really roll of the tongue now does it.

So would you say that "Christian Music" is discriminitory? Or what about the "Church of Christ". I mean should we never use the term Christian. You need to look at the spirit of what I am doing. I have tryed to make it very clear what my goals are with this project. To have someone like yourself attempt to undermine it by playing this game of semantics is just annoying.

Jereme

Terracotta
August 27th, 2006, 09:26 AM
If no one can claim what Christianity is about, Christianity doesn't exist. Therefor there needs to be something or someone telling what it is about. And since there's no Christ around these days it'll have to be normal people deciding what is or is not christian, I'd say that bible study is christian, unless you're a historian then it's scientific research.

KiwiNZ
August 27th, 2006, 09:56 AM
The Ubuntu Logo and the name Ubuntu are the copyrighted property of Canonical Ltd. Not me , not you,neither the forum ,nor its members.

Therefore Canonical Ltd has the right to decide whom can use them or not.If they have decided to do so , then so bet it , end of story.

So let that be decided and lets move on.

The GPL and the princples of the FOSS movement allows for individuals or groups to produce a distribution.
Therefore the decsion to make this distribution has been made by those who have the right to so., then so be it, end of story.

You have the right to either use it or not.

daou
August 27th, 2006, 10:29 AM
I am atheist and I have my personal disagreements with Christianity, the type and number of disagreements depending on the sect in question. Note: Disagreements, not hate, disdan or anything of the sort. I have found common ground, as well, on many issues.

But I just have to say that if Christians adopt Ubuntu CE or Linux in general on a large scale, then I will applaud them for their excellent taste in OS's :D .

jeffc313
August 27th, 2006, 12:10 PM
I kind of have to agree with you there. It would be a bit different if instead of "Ubuntu: Christian Editon" it were something like "Jesux: Based on Ubuntu Technology" (please forgive my horrible pun of Linux and Jesus)
First of all:

I totally agree, there is no need for it. If these christians who will be switchign to linux cant install GnomeSword, or get someone else to do it for them, then how are they ever going to INSTALL THE DISTRO???

Many people will take this the wrong way. They (not I) will probably take this as Canonical backing Christianity and therefore being intolerant of other religions.

There is really no difference between this so called "Ubuntu:CE" and regular Ubuntu. It uses 99% the same packages.

Why not just bundle up GNOMESWORD and DANSGUARDIAN into a nice little debian package and call that "Cristian Packages" you can make your nice little repository and have all of your christians install that.

Kilz
August 27th, 2006, 12:40 PM
I kind of have to agree with you there. It would be a bit different if instead of "Ubuntu: Christian Editon" it were something like "Jesux: Based on Ubuntu Technology" (please forgive my horrible pun of Linux and Jesus)
First of all:

I totally agree, there is no need for it. If these christians who will be switchign to linux cant install GnomeSword, or get someone else to do it for them, then how are they ever going to INSTALL THE DISTRO???

Many people will take this the wrong way. They (not I) will probably take this as Canonical backing Christianity and therefore being intolerant of other religions.

There is really no difference between this so called "Ubuntu:CE" and regular Ubuntu. It uses 99% the same packages.

Why not just bundle up GNOMESWORD and DANSGUARDIAN into a nice little debian package and call that "Cristian Packages" you can make your nice little repository and have all of your christians install that.

IMHO what this gives is what Ubuntu gives in general. The ability to install Linux with what you need without a lot of linux knowledge.
There is no need to know how to install gnomesword, and its modules. Some of witch are not in the repositories. There is no need to setup a firewall that blocks what you don't want to see. Its already done.
Lets also consider that this OS could be used in church schools. The school my daughter attends has 12 computers for the kids. There are also computers for the teachers. With this edition its possible to do multiple installs without configuring each of them.
I also think that the project will grow, its only on its first version. More applications may be added. Each that is added saves time in setup.

jeffc313
August 27th, 2006, 02:43 PM
@kiltz I can see your point, but why still the need fo rthe name Ubuntu: X editon. Since when does everyone need to be a part of a bigger entity. Ubuntu really needs a liscence similar to Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird. If the source is changed, so is the name. no changing p the program and keepig the name. You can still say "X Distro:powered by Ubuntu" but no "Ubuntu: X editon"

Terracotta
August 27th, 2006, 06:48 PM
@kiltz I can see your point, but why still the need fo rthe name Ubuntu: X editon. Since when does everyone need to be a part of a bigger entity. Ubuntu really needs a liscence similar to Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird. If the source is changed, so is the name. no changing p the program and keepig the name. You can still say "X Distro:powered by Ubuntu" but no "Ubuntu: X editon"

It's up to canonical to decide that. Not you, nor anyone else, regretable but still we have to accept that they want it this way and move on.

Kilz
August 27th, 2006, 07:00 PM
@kiltz I can see your point, but why still the need fo rthe name Ubuntu: X editon. Since when does everyone need to be a part of a bigger entity. Ubuntu really needs a liscence similar to Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird. If the source is changed, so is the name. no changing p the program and keepig the name. You can still say "X Distro:powered by Ubuntu" but no "Ubuntu: X editon"

I think the MPL isn't a FOSS license. I would probably stop using Ubuntu if the it changed from the gpl. Especially if it had an insane license like the MPL. It allows you to compile Mozilla and change the license on the binaries to a non FOSS license.
In any event, Canonical gave its ok to use the name. They own the name. They have strict control over it because its a trademark. They could have made the Christan edition change its name , but they didn't. That's all that matters is that canonical said its ok. All the posts here don't change that fact one bit.
There is also freedom, freedom for others to make similar faith based distro's. As long as Canonical gives its ok. Im sure things like "Baby Sacrifice Ubuntu" wont get approved.

JReagan1990
August 27th, 2006, 07:00 PM
Christian edition would allow for churches (and church schools) to install it with all the needed software for church, Bible study, ect without having to search the web for the names of the Christian programs. The name, will attract Christians, and introduce them to the world of linux. Not to mention, it will introduce them to ubuntu, the ubuntu projects (xubuntu, edubuntu, and kubuntu, and open source software. I think this will help more people to find out about linux.:D

RadixLecti
August 27th, 2006, 07:17 PM
So, when're Ubuntu Islamic Edition and Ubuntu Buddhist Edition coming?

And not to mention Ubuntu Atheist Edition (promoting rational thought since 2006)?

Redcard
August 27th, 2006, 07:28 PM
So, when're Ubuntu Islamic Edition and Ubuntu Buddhist Edition coming?

And not to mention Ubuntu Atheist Edition (promoting rational thought since 2006)?

Whenever you wish to start. Go ahead ;)

RadixLecti
August 27th, 2006, 07:50 PM
Somehow, I figured I'd get that answer. ;-)

I'd really like to see an Atheist ubuntu though. Basically a scientifically oriented edition with a few nifty quotes-of-the-day along the lines of (feel free to use my ideas, anyone):

"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code." - Mark Twain

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste." - Mark Twain

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." Isaac Asimov

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." - Peter O'Toole

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov

finferflu
August 27th, 2006, 08:18 PM
That looks a bit odd. I've never seen atheists enjoying themselves in the recognition of their atheism. That's only what "religious" people do, they love to remember themselves that they belong to this or that religion... maybe an atheist can enjoy the fact that he or she does not belong to neither...

Anyway, it seems to me that atheists don't care so much about gods to be bothered everyday in remembering that they don't believe in any god. And what's more, they'd never go for an atheist version of Ubuntu... I guess...

Sorry for the awkwardness of my post...

Terracotta
August 27th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Somehow, I figured I'd get that answer. ;-)

I'd really like to see an Atheist ubuntu though. Basically a scientifically oriented edition with a few nifty quotes-of-the-day along the lines of (feel free to use my ideas, anyone):

"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code." - Mark Twain

"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste." - Mark Twain

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." Isaac Asimov

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself." - Peter O'Toole

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - Isaac Asimov

mhm ok nice quotes and I can't say I completely disagree with them but they are a bit harsh toward other people, this feels like more of a backstab towards the christian edition while the christian edition isn't about making other people feel less about themselves (I hope at least, though some things in the bible are questionable). And Science and religion are unrelated, since one is based on knowing things based on proof and the other is based on believing things that can't be proven to be either correct or incorrect. There's no point in making an atheist ubuntu except for the fact that you can bash religion.

Terracotta
August 27th, 2006, 08:26 PM
That looks a bit odd. I've never seen atheists enjoying themselves in the recognition of their atheism. That's only what "religious" people do, they love to remember themselves that they belong to this or that religion... maybe an atheist can enjoy the fact that he or she does not belong to neither...

Anyway, it seems to me that atheists don't care so much about gods to be bothered everyday in remembering that they don't believe in any god. And what's more, they'd never go for an atheist version of Ubuntu... I guess...

Sorry for the awkwardness of my post...

I think you can call the normal ubuntu versions atheistic because they show no sign of any religion what so ever, what's the point in talking about things you don't believe in and can't be proven to exist :mrgreen: .

finferflu
August 27th, 2006, 09:21 PM
I think you can call the normal ubuntu versions atheistic because they show no sign of any religion what so ever, what's the point in talking about things you don't believe in and can't be proven to exist :mrgreen: .

That's exactly what I meant, only in a better version :mrgreen:

peabody
August 28th, 2006, 09:52 AM
How about an Ubuntu Skeptic's Edition ;). A little more agnostic.

bcw
August 28th, 2006, 10:31 AM
I mean should we never use the term Christian. You need to look at the spirit of what I am doing.

I am. Teams do not follow Jesus's word - individuals may. No one is judged as part of a team - they are judged on how they themself follow what they've been taught.

And what was taught was that this world, and power in it, are dust. The teaching is to give up worldly accomplishment in favor of following The Christ's teachings. "Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow me."

To pull Jesus's name down and try to put it in service to ANY worldly pursuits is to take what I have no business attempting to use. I don't decide who is a follower of The Christ, so I don't decide who is "Christian", nor do I decide what is(n't) "Christian". To do so is to ignore the elephant in the room - the name, the idea, the meaning, are not mine to use for my own pursuits. I can choose to follow or not - I have no other say about it. I don't speak for God, and I'm a fool not to notice that.

To use Jesus's name for accomplishments in this world is to ignore directly what Jesus said. Hands off - not because I say so, but rather because it isn't yours to use for anything, any more than you have a right to pretend you said what I in fact said. I say you are deluding yourself.

That's what I'm pointing out. By my understanding, you are not following The Christ's teachings, by the very act of arrogating the term to your own worldly pursuits. This is no different than selling "Christian Bathrobes" (another worldly pursuit).

And it's a shame Canonical allowed their name to be attached to a person's discriminatory ideas of what is and isn't "Christian". Using the label alone is saying "I know what is Christian for everyone else that comes along - just accept my choices about it". Far wiser to leave it to the individuals in their own pursuit of their own relationship with God.

Regards,
Bret

Kilz
August 28th, 2006, 12:38 PM
I am. Teams do not follow Jesus's word - individuals may. No one is judged as part of a team - they are judged on how they themself follow what they've been taught.

And what was taught was that this world, and power in it, are dust. The teaching is to give up worldly accomplishment in favor of following The Christ's teachings. "Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow me."

To pull Jesus's name down and try to put it in service to ANY worldly pursuits is to take what I have no business attempting to use. I don't decide who is a follower of The Christ, so I don't decide who is "Christian", nor do I decide what is(n't) "Christian". To do so is to ignore the elephant in the room - the name, the idea, the meaning, are not mine to use for my own pursuits. I can choose to follow or not - I have no other say about it. I don't speak for God, and I'm a fool not to notice that.

To use Jesus's name for accomplishments in this world is to ignore directly what Jesus said. Hands off - not because I say so, but rather because it isn't yours to use for anything, any more than you have a right to pretend you said what I in fact said. I say you are deluding yourself.

That's what I'm pointing out. By my understanding, you are not following The Christ's teachings, by the very act of arrogating the term to your own worldly pursuits. This is no different than selling "Christian Bathrobes" (another worldly pursuit).

And it's a shame Canonical allowed their name to be attached to a person's discriminatory ideas of what is and isn't "Christian". Using the label alone is saying "I know what is Christian for everyone else that comes along - just accept my choices about it". Far wiser to leave it to the individuals in their own pursuit of their own relationship with God.

Regards,
Bret

What about a Christian Book store. Do you have a problem with that? How about Christian Television? How about a Christan Website? Maybe we should not use the term on a product for sale. But the Ubuntu Christan Edition isnt for sale. Its given away, free.

mhancoc7
August 28th, 2006, 12:43 PM
What about a Christian Book store. Do you have a problem with that? How about Christian Television? How about a Christan Website?

Yeah, I think bcw is being a bit extreme with this. :-s

Jereme

muz1
August 28th, 2006, 12:50 PM
My 2 cents.
I am a christian and I have been following this debate behind Christian Ubuntu. It looks interesting but I have to say that I would prefer to have a mod pack instead of a whole Operating system. I am not saying that Christian Ubuntu is wrong or I am against it. Basically I am not going to install it as I would have to overwrite my whole operating system when all I am getting is additional software and a Christ based skin.
How about taking what is different from the normal Ubuntu and releasing it into a mod pack? I would be interested in it then.
Cheers
muz

Kilz
August 28th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Yeah, I think bcw is being a bit extreme with this. :-s

Jereme

I think you are correct because this statment

That's what I'm pointing out. By my understanding, you are not following The Christ's teachings, by the very act of arrogating the term to your own worldly pursuits. This is no different than selling "Christian Bathrobes" (another worldly pursuit).
Tries to make a link between selling an item in pursuit of profits and the free operating system you are giving away that includes an electronic bible. The words "worldly pursuits" really point thins out . It is a flaw in the argument.
What about the Gideons? Who try to make the word of god freely avaialable to everyone? The Ubuntu Christan edition is more closly related to that than selling things.
"The sower soweth the word"

DigitalDuality
August 28th, 2006, 06:46 PM
i don't understand why people have to inject their politics and religion into everything.

I'm a very political person and the only reason my sig here even reflects political links.. is to counter some of the hateful douchebags i've encountered on this site, normally spitting vitriol about anyone who isn't as white, christian, or hetero as they are. it really has little to do with promotion and more of a snipe.

what the hell will "christbuntu" do that ubuntu doesn't? I guess everything is a tool to push an agenda nowadays and people can't just leave **** alone.

stupid.

Redcard
August 28th, 2006, 07:11 PM
i don't understand why people have to inject their politics and religion into everything.

I'm a very political person and the only reason my sig here even reflects political links.. is to counter some of the hateful douchebags i've encountered on this site, normally spitting vitriol about anyone who isn't as white, christian, or hetero as they are. it really has little to do with promotion and more of a snipe.

what the hell will "christbuntu" do that ubuntu doesn't? I guess everything is a tool to push an agenda nowadays and people can't just leave **** alone.

stupid.



I love how you push your agenda while claiming you're not pushing your agenda and chastising other people for pushing their agenda.

That's just about as hypocritical as humanly possible. No sir, you have incredibly political websites linked in your Sig to PUSH YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. If you did not wish to push your beliefs on others, just remove those websites from your Sig.

Though, I bet you won't. Because, like you said.. everything's a tool. Including your sig.

aysiu
August 28th, 2006, 07:30 PM
what the hell will "christbuntu" do that ubuntu doesn't? Come with a lot of software the Christian organizations and churches might find immediately useful? No one's forcing it on you. Did someone sneak into your room and install Ubuntu Christian Edition on your computer in the middle of the night?


I guess everything is a tool to push an agenda nowadays and people can't just leave **** alone. A great description of your post.

BigDave708
August 28th, 2006, 07:42 PM
i don't understand why people have to inject their politics and religion into everything.

I'm a very political person and the only reason my sig here even reflects political links.. is to counter some of the hateful douchebags i've encountered on this site, normally spitting vitriol about anyone who isn't as white, christian, or hetero as they are. it really has little to do with promotion and more of a snipe.

what the hell will "christbuntu" do that ubuntu doesn't? I guess everything is a tool to push an agenda nowadays and people can't just leave **** alone.

stupid.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're doing exactly the same now.

Stupid.

RavenOfOdin
August 28th, 2006, 08:50 PM
I love how you push your agenda while claiming you're not pushing your agenda and chastising other people for pushing their agenda.

That's just about as hypocritical as humanly possible. No sir, you have incredibly political websites linked in your Sig to PUSH YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. If you did not wish to push your beliefs on others, just remove those websites from your Sig.

Though, I bet you won't. Because, like you said.. everything's a tool. Including your sig.

For my part, I agree. That signature is horrible.
Funny thing that double standards exist. . .

I've seen complete and total flame bait in signatures here, that people look the other way on when it suits them.

Redcard
August 28th, 2006, 10:04 PM
For my part, I agree. That signature is horrible.
Funny thing that double standards exist. . .

I've seen complete and total flame bait in signatures here, that people look the other way on when it suits them.

THe sig isn't horrible. It falls in line with most of my political beliefs.

The statement that he thinks that a fork of a distribution is pushing its beliefs.. and the rationalization that his sig isn't when it clearly is..

That's what's horrible.

It's really sad how people can say "Don't do this" while they're doing exactly what they want to prohibit you from doing.

RavenOfOdin
August 28th, 2006, 10:25 PM
The statement that he thinks that a fork of a distribution is pushing its beliefs.. and the rationalization that his sig isn't when it clearly is..

That's what's horrible.


That too. :D :p

aysiu
August 28th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Was that meant to be offensive to somebody? :p
Was your post meant to be?

finferflu
August 28th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Was your post meant to be?

Well, we've got to the jail for that :p
I was just being ironical, anyway...

and I guess it's not really been understood, since it was only a reaction to the responses to DigitalDuality's post and sig.

Kilz
August 28th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Well, we've got to the jail for that :p
I was just being ironical, anyway...

and I guess it's not really been understood, since it was only a reaction to the responses to DigitalDuality's post and sig.

I had to read what was in the jail after that, and I cant understand why its there.

bcw
August 29th, 2006, 08:07 AM
What about a Christian Book store. Do you have a problem with that? How about Christian Television? How about a Christan Website? Maybe we should not use the term on a product for sale. But the Ubuntu Christan Edition isnt for sale. Its given away, free.

Suppose I put together a project for a 'Kilz' distro. And I actually put work into it, and put together my philosophy of why I was doing it, and it really came into existence. And I told everyone about it.

'Kilz' isn't my name - it's yours. If I told people why I chose 'Kilz' and said it was my business to decide what that meant, while saying I got the name from you, how would you feel?

It's not my name to use.

'The Christ' and 'Jesus' (meaning The Christ in this case) isn't anyone's property, to be used for their pursuits. No one but The Christ has any business deciding what that stands for - and he said what he wanted to say, and no one has any business deciding that that name should be associated with their own, personally chosen, efforts.

I have no business associating The Christ with my chosen pursuits - the identity, name, meaning, are not mine to use for worldly actions. I do or do not follow the word, I don't use it to satisfy my own desires. No matter how sweet I insist they are.

If you are sincere in thinking it through, I expect you wouldn't like me to represent what your name meant for you - I think you'd expect me to stand on my own in doing what I do. In the same way, I don't accept anyone appropriating The Christ for their own chosen worldly pursuits.

And this is a worldly pursuit, intended to provide identity. The software is already available - only the naming is involved here. That is the only purpose. - that it be named "Christian" in some way.

Think of doing the same collection and functionality, and calling it, say - 'Ubuntu Kilz', without the "Christian" label. Not the same, is it? If it is the same, then just do that instead. No one will complain.

In truth, someone just wants to see the world "Christian" on it somehow, so they can feel good that they are identified with the right group. 'I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it.'

But no other person is involved in my relationship with The Christ - no one can fit in there. There's me, and there's The Christ, and only The Christ will judge how well I followed his teaching.

You (just for instance, you're a fine person) won't. You (again, just for instance) aren't involved. This is not a team sport.

Labelling is about exclusion. "Not something else." All-inclusive labels are meaningless, but this is not all-inclusive. It is specifically to discriminate - while in this world. A special group - people that choose this label.

Vanity is dangerous because it insulates people from reality - in this case, individual responsibility as opposed to the cloak of "belonging to a chosen group" - which will not save anyone from their errors. Belonging to a group is a warm feeling. That it feels good does not make it right to do.

And other people using the label "Christian" for their worldly pursuits doesn't change that this is a mistake ("oh, everyone's doing it"). Shame on Canonical for allowing their name to be associated with a few people's appropriation of The Christ's name for their worldly pursuits. Only The Christ decides what The Christ is about.

Just as only you decide what you are about. And I decide only about me.

And only The Christ decides what is and what is not "Christian". In the end, only The Christ decides. Foolish to try to appropriate that discrimination as a cover for my actions. It's not my name.

Regards,
Bret

mhancoc7
August 29th, 2006, 09:04 AM
'I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it.'
Bret

So do you have the right to say that. I mean it is not your's to use.

So does this mean that gnomesword should not be labled as a Christian software program.

I see what you are saying and I think I understand the point, but I think you have gone to the extreme here. I mean you talked earlier about giving up all your worldly possesions to follow Christ yet you obviously have internet access.

I know what is in my heart and I know that my project's goals are not the pursuit of anything accept introducing Linux to Christians and I feel good about it.

God Bless, Jereme

bcw
August 29th, 2006, 01:10 PM
'I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it.'
Bret


So do you have the right to say that. I mean it is not your's to use.

I put that in quotes to show I didn't say it myself - that was part of me pointing out what others would want to do. The quotes are to generalize the voice - to distinguish it from my writing.



So does this mean that gnomesword should not be labled as a Christian software program.

"should". A tricky word. I'm not talking about "should". I'm saying no one on this earth has the authority to apply the term to worldly things, and it's unwise to lose sight of that.


I see what you are saying and I think I understand the point, but I think you have gone to the extreme here. I mean you talked earlier about giving up all your worldly possesions to follow Christ yet you obviously have internet access.

God *is* the extreme. There is no surprise in noticing that these are the absolute marbles - the final Real Thing. Of course extremes are involved. This is a temporal, temporary existence we are living now, and to speak of the Kingdom of Heaven is to speak of extremes. Absolute extremes. Almighty extremes.

My failures will excuse no one else from a mistake they know is a mistake. I understand I will be forgiven my failures, but not my insincereties. If I know better, I am not wise to pretend for convenience in my pursuits on this earth.

And I don't consider myself "a Christian". I am, however, turning more and more to what The Christ taught. And failing. Often. But I'm not required to succeed - it's not possible for me to obtain the Divine by my own actions. Jesus said that himself - it's not my opinion.

And as anyone reads this and jumps to "Ha! You aren't a Christian!" - remember, it's not what I think, or what you think, it's what The Christ decides.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not a consensus, or a sports team, or a Democracy, or a Right. No priest or politician, or anyone else on this earth, decides who qualifies, no matter how heartfelt the desire.


I know what is in my heart and I know that my project's goals are not the pursuit of anything accept introducing Linux to Christians and I feel good about it.

I intend nothing other than to express what I see in my own heart (in this case as a mistake). Nothing that I say or do changes your relationship (you in this case) with God.

You will do what you will do. I'm trying to point out what I see as an overlooked mistake. And expressing that I don't think Canonical should associate themselves with this. And be understood for what it is I'm actually saying.

Regards,
Bret

Kilz
August 29th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Suppose I put together a project for a 'Kilz' distro. And I actually put work into it, and put together my philosophy of why I was doing it, and it really came into existence. And I told everyone about it.

'Kilz' isn't my name - it's yours. If I told people why I chose 'Kilz' and said it was my business to decide what that meant, while saying I got the name from you, how would you feel?

It's not my name to use.

'The Christ' and 'Jesus' (meaning The Christ in this case) isn't anyone's property, to be used for their pursuits. No one but The Christ has any business deciding what that stands for - and he said what he wanted to say, and no one has any business deciding that that name should be associated with their own, personally chosen, efforts.

I have no business associating The Christ with my chosen pursuits - the identity, name, meaning, are not mine to use for worldly actions. I do or do not follow the word, I don't use it to satisfy my own desires. No matter how sweet I insist they are.

If you are sincere in thinking it through, I expect you wouldn't like me to represent what your name meant for you - I think you'd expect me to stand on my own in doing what I do. In the same way, I don't accept anyone appropriating The Christ for their own chosen worldly pursuits.

And this is a worldly pursuit, intended to provide identity. The software is already available - only the naming is involved here. That is the only purpose. - that it be named "Christian" in some way.

Think of doing the same collection and functionality, and calling it, say - 'Ubuntu Kilz', without the "Christian" label. Not the same, is it? If it is the same, then just do that instead. No one will complain.

In truth, someone just wants to see the world "Christian" on it somehow, so they can feel good that they are identified with the right group. 'I'm a Christian and I'm proud of it.'

But no other person is involved in my relationship with The Christ - no one can fit in there. There's me, and there's The Christ, and only The Christ will judge how well I followed his teaching.

You (just for instance, you're a fine person) won't. You (again, just for instance) aren't involved. This is not a team sport.

Labelling is about exclusion. "Not something else." All-inclusive labels are meaningless, but this is not all-inclusive. It is specifically to discriminate - while in this world. A special group - people that choose this label.

Vanity is dangerous because it insulates people from reality - in this case, individual responsibility as opposed to the cloak of "belonging to a chosen group" - which will not save anyone from their errors. Belonging to a group is a warm feeling. That it feels good does not make it right to do.

And other people using the label "Christian" for their worldly pursuits doesn't change that this is a mistake ("oh, everyone's doing it"). Shame on Canonical for allowing their name to be associated with a few people's appropriation of The Christ's name for their worldly pursuits. Only The Christ decides what The Christ is about.

Just as only you decide what you are about. And I decide only about me.

And only The Christ decides what is and what is not "Christian". In the end, only The Christ decides. Foolish to try to appropriate that discrimination as a cover for my actions. It's not my name.

Regards,
Bret

You keep calling this a worldly pursuit, I disagree. It not a pursuit, but a gift. Given freely, without profit or reward.
I would care less if someone used my name, in fact this name isnt owned just by me.
We dont know what path god has placed mhancoc7 on. We do not know that god has not placed the idea and desise to make the ubuntu christan edition in him. Just as he calls people to preach, to testify, and others to do good works in his name.
Saying that you know what soeone should or shouldnt do that is not in the bible is wrong. Please point out the passage that proves your possision.
"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."Deuteronomy 12:32

mhancoc7
August 29th, 2006, 01:57 PM
@bcw

I just want to make it clear that I have no doubt that you are a Christian. I wish you the best with all that you do. Thank you for following your heart (Christ) and letting us know what you think. I do not completely agree, obviously, but that does not mean that I do not care.

God Bless, Jereme

RadixLecti
August 29th, 2006, 05:05 PM
All right. Let's have a pastafarian edition.

www.venganza.org

Redcard
August 29th, 2006, 07:05 PM
All right. Let's have a pastafarian edition.

www.venganza.org

Go ahead and do it ;)

Kilz
August 29th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Go ahead and do it ;)

I agree, if RadixLecti wants to make any edition, go for it. All RadixLecti has to do is contact Canonical for permission to use the trademark.

1oki
August 29th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Seriously, why do people care this much. It's still Ubuntu.


because thats the point! an operating system with a religious theme... Thats almost like putting a hooters girl as the door maid of a church... Now that maybe a little extreme in comparison, but I just don't understand why it has to be a religious theme. I am not saying not to. People have the right to express their selves as much as they want! It doesn't hurt me, nor does it hurt others!

anywhere you look the Christian society looks down on those who don't follow them. I was raised catholic.. Now I understand that all religion does this, but I also understand that not everyone in those religions do that. For the most part they do. Anyways, people don't like it when another group of people start to move in. Maybe people are feeling like this maybe an attempt from Christianity to spread their word through fear mongering and scare tactics?
Or maybe its because people who tend to use Linux are those that don't necessarily accommodate to regular standards, and don't like an organized established society taking over their space?

idk, its not my view. Just trying to look at it from a different perspective. I could really care less if you create a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or satanic distro. Its all expression, and its all taken with a grain of salt in my book! So keep up the progress with your creativity. Though I don't understand nor do I care to understand peoples obsession with religion, I still feel you have the right to create what you want! :)

l

p.s. I really don't feel like wading through all those posts to get to the reason of this distro! thats why i asked again! Also, I understand this is a Linux forum, and i am not trying to preach... but i figured i would try to look at others points of view and share :)

KiwiNZ
August 29th, 2006, 08:13 PM
Please remain on topic

K.Mandla
August 29th, 2006, 08:28 PM
At the risk of inserting myself into the fray here, I don't see any harm in a Christian version of Ubuntu, or a Muslim version, or a Jewish version, or a cult version with aliens that come down to Earth to whisk the true believers off to outer space. (Like in that Styx song.)

I'm not a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew, and it makes no difference to me if you are. If you want a version of Ubuntu that caters to your own beliefs, I say go for it.

Making your own distro is a huge undertaking and I respect anyone who does it. And so my hat is off to you, no matter what your preferred flavor of Linux is.

I, personally, am working on a distro where everything is blue. :mrgreen:

LaserJock
August 29th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I think the idea here is that there is software out there (Bible reading, song lyric projection, Bible dictionaries, etc.) that is designed for churches and Christian organizations and individuals. Now most all of that is already available in Ubuntu through the Universe repositories, but the idea is to put those packages together along with artwork and tools that will make the user experience better.

I don't really see a technological difference between a Christian Ubuntu version and a KDE Ubuntu version (Kubuntu). The idea is to present a different default set of installed applications to the user. The only issue I see is a social one, and that is that many people don't like the idea of mixing religion and computing. But the fact of the matter is that it's already there. Ubuntu CE and Ichthux are more than 99.9% packages from Ubuntu that already existed. The religious software is already in Ubuntu, it just isn't installed by default.

It is much nicer for Christians to make a CD that they can download rather than trying to add BibleTime to the default Ubuntu install, no? It is much less "offensive" for them to create a separate .iso .

-LaserJock

aysiu
August 30th, 2006, 12:27 AM
Scenario 1

Pastor: So I tried out that... Ubuntu CD you gave me the other day. Pretty neat stuff.

Congregant: Did you try out that install script I gave you?

Pastor: I... tried the install script, but I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. I really liked the look of the thing, but what could we use it for?

Congregant: Well, you could use it for a lot of things. You can prepare Bible studies with it, prepare slideshows, keep track of church attendance.

Pastor: It'd be great to be able to see something like that.

Congregant: Yeah, that's what that install script is for.

Pastor: Well, when I ran that script, I got some kind of error.

Congregant: Oh, really..? Let me take a look... [time passes] I guess... you don't really have an internet connection. Well, maybe I can download some sort of helper disk and then help you install those programs. I'd have to install Ubuntu on your computer first, in order to show you... since you don't really seem to have a lot of RAM on your computer to install those on a live session.

Pastor: What's RAM?

Scenario 2

Pastor: So I tried out that Ubuntu Christian Edition CD you gave me the other day.

Congregant: What'd you think?

Pastor: It's awesome. That Bible study program is great, and I think we can use it. Can this Ubuntu do anything else?

Congregant: Well, there are some other programs we can install, and future versions of this Christian edition may include something like MediaShout to help us with our worship services. We could track church attendance, do budgets.

Pastor: Well, I'm impressed enough that I'd like to install it on at least one of our computers. Then we can play around with it some more.

Scenario 3

Pastor: Bwah ha ha ha ha! Now we can convert all the masses to Christianity. We gave up after a while on the crusades, but with Canonical giving us the okay to create... the Christian Edition of Ubuntu... we can rule the world!

Congregant: Yes! Goodbye to religious freedom everywhere!

Kilz
August 30th, 2006, 12:44 AM
Scenario 3

Pastor: Bwah ha ha ha ha! Now we can convert all the masses to Christianity. We gave up after a while on the crusades, but with Canonical giving us the okay to create... the Christian Edition of Ubuntu... we can rule the world!

Congregant: Yes! Goodbye to religious freedom everywhere!

:D Now thats funny!

glotz
August 30th, 2006, 01:22 AM
Go fundies go!
http://www.instantattitudes.com/gifs/bs146.gif

Terracotta
August 30th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Scenario 1

Pastor: So I tried out that... Ubuntu CD you gave me the other day. Pretty neat stuff.

Congregant: Did you try out that install script I gave you?

Pastor: I... tried the install script, but I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. I really liked the look of the thing, but what could we use it for?

Congregant: Well, you could use it for a lot of things. You can prepare Bible studies with it, prepare slideshows, keep track of church attendance.

Pastor: It'd be great to be able to see something like that.

Congregant: Yeah, that's what that install script is for.

Pastor: Well, when I ran that script, I got some kind of error.

Congregant: Oh, really..? Let me take a look... [time passes] I guess... you don't really have an internet connection. Well, maybe I can download some sort of helper disk and then help you install those programs. I'd have to install Ubuntu on your computer first, in order to show you... since you don't really seem to have a lot of RAM on your computer to install those on a live session.

Pastor: What's RAM?


Live cd's are crap to use to show off, they are horribly slow, so that's not a great point either (and saying: it's so slow because it's running from a cd, doesn't really help when people don't know much about pc's), also using the ubuntu live-cd as a rescue cd somehow doesn't seem to work (I've never been able to access my hard drives using an ubuntu live-cd, though with mepis and knoppix that's the real advantage, I hope they get that fixed someday because in my point of view a rescue cd is the only advantage a live-cd has). To show off you'd better use a usb memory stick, or a laptop.

Extra add-on cd's are used in windows as well, people are used to using it, or they are used to letting other people install their operating system for them, which would eliminate his problems anyway. Your points are not solved with the livecd, when he wants to do something that is not included in the C.E. version he's going to have to ask anyway, with C.E. and it's community growing, more ubuntu stuff is going to be kept out of it because otherwise it won't fit on a cd, so keeping your audience either dependant on other people or you, or keeping them stupid won't help neither linux nor them, will it?.

This is with all respect to the creator of C.E. he's putting a lot of work in it, still not sure if I like how he did it, but I don't have to nor does he have to agree with me, and if he thinks he's doing right who am I to blame him.


Scenario 3

Pastor: Bwah ha ha ha ha! Now we can convert all the masses to Christianity. We gave up after a while on the crusades, but with Canonical giving us the okay to create... the Christian Edition of Ubuntu... we can rule the world!

Congregant: Yes! Goodbye to religious freedom everywhere!

ROFL now we're talking :mrgreen:

1oki
August 30th, 2006, 02:22 AM
I, personally, am working on a distro where everything is blue. :mrgreen:

Let me know when your done! I would love to take a look at that! I dont like the ubuntu brown that much... :) Kubuntu blue is good but like gnome better!


Also back to this christian distro, how far is it to being done?

Terracotta
August 30th, 2006, 10:03 AM
Let me know when your done! I would love to take a look at that! I dont like the ubuntu brown that much... :) Kubuntu blue is good but like gnome better!


Also back to this christian distro, how far is it to being done?

It IS done, this rant is meaningless but just a whooole lot of fun :mrgreen: .

mhancoc7
August 30th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Also back to this christian distro, how far is it to being done?

You mean to tell me that you didn't even check out the project page before you began to bash it. ](*,)

Jereme

richbarna
August 30th, 2006, 12:39 PM
You mean to tell me that you didn't even check out the project page before you began to bash it. ](*,)

Jereme

Lol :mrgreen: I love a good "unresearched" rant.

1oki
August 30th, 2006, 05:06 PM
You mean to tell me that you didn't even check out the project page before you began to bash it. ](*,)

Jereme

clarification... I never bashed the project

KiwiNZ
August 30th, 2006, 09:36 PM
I really do believe this thread has run its course and its just going in circles.
I am going to bring to a quiet close. If anyone has a pressing need for it to be reopened contact me and I will look at it.

Thanks folks for a lively debate.

mority
October 11th, 2006, 09:08 AM
First of all: It's not my intention to personally offend anyone. It's an act of criticism and expression of opinion.

I am disappointed that a project like "Ubuntu Christian Edition" exists and is even featured by the Ubuntu Foundation by giving a section in the Forums to it. Why am I disappointed? Because I always thougt, that programmers, hackers and computer enthusiasts were smart and rational. I never thought they would be attracted by reactionary, antiquated and anti-progressive ideologies like Christianinty.
Yes, in my opinion, Christians aren't much better than those islamic fascists bombing school busses and sky scrapers and beating and stoning to death their women. Now you cry: But we don't do any of those evil things and Jesus stands for peace. I say: the mindest of any Christian and any Moslem is almost the same. You pray to the same god. It's just about different historic contexts. The only reason why Christianity is not as much a threat to humanity as Islam anymore is just the fact that Christianity was successfully forced back by enlightenment since the French Revolution.

The Free and Open Source Movement is about enlightenment, humanity and rationality. The "Ubuntu Christian Edition" is an act of treason. Treason against enlightenment.

FeraTech
December 14th, 2006, 10:11 AM
I just realized that there was a Christian version of ubuntu.

Is there really an interest in the Christian community to support this product? Also, are there plans to offer/tailor Ubuntu to other religions?

Also, what is even involved or different in religious versions?

I could see there being some programs for bible search tools being incorporated or certain games/programs restricted. However, wouldn't that be better suited by making a program similar to that of EasyUbuntu.

Something more along the lines of religisizing your PC.

mhancoc7
December 14th, 2006, 10:26 AM
I just realized that there was a Christian version of ubuntu.

Is there really an interest in the Christian community to support this product? Also, are there plans to offer/tailor Ubuntu to other religions?

Also, what is even involved or different in religious versions?

I could see there being some programs for bible search tools being incorporated or certain games/programs restricted. However, wouldn't that be better suited by making a program similar to that of EasyUbuntu.

Something more along the lines of religisizing your PC.

Yes, I believe that Ubuntu CE has proven itself to have enough interest. The project has grown tremendously in the past few months. You can check Distrowatch (http://distrowatch.com) to see that Ubuntu CE is consistently ranked 20-28th in popularity. This is of course not always the best way to determine true interest. However, there has been plenty of other evidence to ensure that Ubuntu CE will continue to grow.

If you would like to learn more about Ubuntu CE you are welcome to check out the project site, www.ChristianUbuntu.com (http://www.christianubuntu.com). I understand your suggestions. Believe me they have been covered. I am not trying to dodge your suggestions, it is just that they have been covered so much on the forum already.

Thanks, Jereme

Sef
December 14th, 2006, 11:28 AM
Also, what is even involved or different in religious versions?

You can set up a version of Ubuntu for any religion.

montgoej
December 14th, 2006, 08:05 PM
There is a version of Linux for muslims too, based on Ubuntu called Arabian Linux. There is some info about it here (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=arabian). The nature of Linux it is easy to make a custom distro, and it seems like I've seen others with this idea, just can't remember them from the top of my head.
~Jordan Montgomery

raul_
December 14th, 2006, 08:11 PM
What about the jews?

FeraTech
December 14th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Well this actully brings me to an important question. How easy is it to customize an Ubuntu Distro? It might be something that my company would be interested in. Are there any resources or link I could go to see if it is worth it?

3rdalbum
December 15th, 2006, 06:21 AM
FeraTech: Simple edits (splash screen, wallpaper, included applications) can be made using Reconstructor (http://reconstructor.aperantis.com/).

It's a fairly simple process. If you want more control, Reconstructor extracts the SquashFS image from the Live CD, and you can make manual modifications to it before putting it back together as an ISO.

I tried some simple customisation using Reconstructor; it's really easy.

Rodneyck
December 15th, 2006, 06:31 AM
What about the pagans? So many more choices in Gods... :-D

hardyn
December 15th, 2006, 06:46 AM
Im sure this has been beat to death... but...

I fail to see the reson behind special interest versions of an operating system, ubuntu is a "linux for human beings", why cannot we just be human beings?

I don't care what one does with their own computer, installed progam, desktop wall paper, even pupose of use. but i am a little lost as to why ubuntu and conanical has allowed the use of the ubuntu name for these special flavors.

I have absoluty no problem if persons or organizations want to make an "'insert special interest here' kit for ubuntu", but recognised re-distributions of the parent leave a bit of a bad taste with me. It seems to create a hiearchy of "humanity" within the community... by creating an offical special interest, in my mind, we have now created super and sub humans.

now i do highly agree with the language expansion of unbuntu, and im sure my agreeing with official language support and not recognised special interest could be viewed as hypocritical, but i defend that as expansion of the community and user base, not segrigation it into special interest cliques.

thanks.

mhancoc7
December 15th, 2006, 06:49 AM
now i do highly agree with the language expansion of unbuntu, and im sure my agreeing with official language support and not recognised special interest could be viewed as hypocritical, but i defend that as expansion of the community and user base, not segrigation it into special interest cliques.

I see this as the same thing. When you localize Ubuntu for a specific language you are customizing the distro for that group's needs. That is exactly what Ubuntu CE is doing.

Jereme

aysiu
December 15th, 2006, 07:00 AM
hardyn, I do realize your question is out of genuine curiosity/skepticism, but this topic has really been done to death. mhancoc7 and Ubuntu have disagreed with you, and that's how it's going to be. mhancoc7 asked for permission to use the Ubuntu name, and permission was given. It is not an official release, but Ubuntu is part of the Ubuntu CE name.

Again, you don't have to agree with it, but that's how it is, and others are free to disagree with you as well.

hardyn
December 15th, 2006, 07:09 AM
does Cannonical have an offical position on Satan Edition yet?

I ask out of curiousity, nothing more.

zetetic
December 15th, 2006, 03:36 PM
«does Cannonical have an offical position on Satan Edition yet?»

lol
good point.
THis will lead us to unprecedented and unforeseeable consequences...
One you allow one special interest version you have to allow any kind of special versions... equality and freedom of speech you know...

zetetic

OneSeventeen
December 15th, 2006, 10:06 PM
does Cannonical have an offical position on Satan Edition yet?

I ask out of curiousity, nothing more.
My assumption is they would take the same stance as they have with Ubuntu Christian Edition. They do not official support or promote it. I'm sure having these forums are purely based on their whim and they could easily take it down any time they wish.

And just to add to the actual topic (which has been beaten to death), my reason for liking flavors of Ubuntu is because sometimes you just want to pop in a CD and have all the stuff you really want in an operating system (without downloading and reconfiguring things).

Plus it helps get Ubuntu pushed out to special interests groups by making it easier to pop in a live CD and show what is possible with Ubuntu, rather than popping in a live CD, installing packages from the internet and configuring them, then showing your friends what it can do.

(Not to mention people in the middle of nowhere that have limited or no network connectivity but would like to use their computers for a specific purpose. Missionaries in various countries come to mind.)

Either way, I'm glad there's a lot of flavors that use the same base operating system. It's kind of like having the option to get a cheese pizza and put all the toppings on yourself, or just call in and order your favorite ready-made pizza with just the right toppings.

aysiu
December 15th, 2006, 10:40 PM
My honest prediction--Ubuntu won't dig Satanism being associated with Ubuntu but would happilly embrace Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam.

The word Satan tends to have a pretty negative connotation in general society, even though a lot of people on the forums seem to dig it.

raul_
December 15th, 2006, 11:37 PM
My honest prediction--Ubuntu won't dig Satanism being associated with Ubuntu but would happilly embrace Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam.

The word Satan tends to have a pretty negative connotation in general society, even though a lot of people on the forums seem to dig it.

I tend to think that a LOT (not all) of people who are in Science (Computers included) aren't religious so what people say in this forums is probably joking (bad, arguably)

jbayone
December 15th, 2006, 11:50 PM
A "Christian" version of software sounds like something of a joke in itself though. At least to me anyway...

aysiu
December 15th, 2006, 11:56 PM
A "Christian" version of software sounds like something of a joke in itself though. At least to me anyway...
I can assure you it's not.

dakotadare2b
December 16th, 2006, 05:26 AM
I see this as the same thing. When you localize Ubuntu for a specific language you are customizing the distro for that group's needs. That is exactly what Ubuntu CE is doing.

Jereme

Well put, Jereme. I agree that Ubuntu CE is expanding the community of Ubuntu and Linux, while providing features that benefit that niche.

God Bless,
Randy

saxonjf
December 16th, 2006, 06:35 AM
I think the recent edition of the Ubuntu Podcast sufficiently covered this. For those who don't know, the Ubuntu podcast is an excellent resources, and the founder of Ubuntu CE was on it, explaining his purpose and vision for CE.

For whoever asked if there was sufficient interest in CE, he said that it was th #26 distro at distrowatch.com. That must mean something.

I want to say that although I have no interest whatsoever in changing over to CE, I, as a Christian, can defend the Christian interest in Ubuntu, and I intend to explain over a few points.

1. Many churches have limited monetary resources. They may have more than one computer, but don't want to have to spend several hundred dollars to install Windows on each computer. Ubuntu (among other Linux distros) allows people to install one set of software onto multiple computers.

2. Many churches are illegally running a single license of Windows on multiple computers, usually unaware of their larcenous state. Ubuntu fixes that problem.

3. Individual Christians should be looking for ways to be wise with their money. Wisdom of money is the opposite of the root of all evil (the love of money), Ubuntu is another way for honest Christians to find more ways to treat filthy lucre.

4. I believe that Christians should participate in all parts of society, and therefore, a few Christians (including fundamentalists like myself) should participate and join in the rest of humanity in all activities. I am no programmer, but I want to be part of a group with high ideals.

I realize that some would not want us here, but apparently in the eyes of Canonical, we are welcome to participate.

angrykeyboarder
December 19th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Coming in 2007!



LuciferLinux
Linux for Satanists™



www.luciferlinux.org (http://www.luciferlinux.org/)

doobit
December 19th, 2006, 03:47 PM
I think that is way off topic.

deadgobby
December 19th, 2006, 03:54 PM
It may be off topic. I just can't help but laugh. Got to have a good sence of humor to live in this world today or you may implode. :p

angrykeyboarder
December 19th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Well, I am glad that you find it amusing. However, Ubuntu CE is not a

The first time I got wind of it I thought it had to be a joke. It was too asinine an idea not to be..



It is simply a pre-configured and customized version of Ubuntu for a specific group of people (Christians). The idea is to bring Linux to a community of people who in my opinion are until now are an untapped market for Linux.

So in other words there aren't any Christinas using Linux. Linux is only used by Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so forth. Christians aren't benefiting from the FLOSS community like the rest of the world has somehow managed to figure out, so you're going to change that.



This project is not about bringing Christianity to Linux users. It is just the opposite. It is an excellent example of how we can use the power of Open Source software to really provide groups with a product that will truly meet their needs.

And just why are Christians so much more "needy" than non-Christians?


I really wish those who are opposed to the Christian faith could take their guards down for a moment and look at the bigger picture of what I am trying to accomplish.

I don't get what you're trying to accomplish. Millions of Christians around the world use Linux, Mac OS and Windows every single day. Who is this supposed untapped market? Christians are using Linux right now (or are they?).

Or maybe you're implying that Christians aren't as smart as Non-Christians when it comes to installing "Churchy" software? Considering the zillions of Windows users that have been doing that for years (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=on&q=%2Bchristian+%2Bsoftware) I find that rather odd.....

And why is it that somebody hasn't come up with Buddhist or Hindu Ubuntu? Considering the number of Buddhists and Hindus on the planet it certainly would seem logical don't ya think?

HareBall
December 19th, 2006, 04:21 PM
The first time I got wind of it I thought it had to be a joke. It was too asinine an idea not to be..



So in other words there aren't any Christinas using Linux. Linux is only used by Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so forth. Christians aren't benefiting from the FLOSS community like the rest of the world has somehow managed to figure out, so you're going to change that.



And just why are Christians so much more "needy" than non-Christians?



I don't get what you're trying to accomplish. Millions of Christians around the world use Linux, Mac OS and Windows every single day. Who is this supposed untapped market? Christians are using Linux right now (or are they?).


And why is it that somebody hasn't come up with Buddhist or Hindu Ubuntu? Considering the number of Buddhists and Hindus on the planet it certainly would seem logical don't ya think?

I would just like to know why this bothers you so much that you feel the need to come and try to belittle someone for doing something for someone else? Nobody is forcing you to use it and like someone else said, isn't Ubuntu supposed to be for all humans? The last time I checked, we were human too.
If you want OS's directed at the Hindu or Buddhist segment, you are more than welcome to build one. Jereme put together this for Christians.:KS

23meg
December 19th, 2006, 04:39 PM
So in other words there aren't any Christinas using Linux. Linux is only used by Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and so forth. Christians aren't benefiting from the FLOSS community like the rest of the world has somehow managed to figure out, so you're going to change that.No, you're reading what you want to see into mhancoc7's statements, which could be put in other words as well. The point is: Linux is underutilized by the whole world, by people of all religions, as well as the non-religious, and with Ubuntu we want to change that, we want to fix bug #1, right? By providing a version of Ubuntu tailored for the needs of those who practise Christian faith, Ubuntu CE is perhaps targeting a niche of people who aren't using Linux, and would find it convenient and heartening to have an OS that ships with software related to their religion. A set of people who may not be interested in Linux at all may get interested solely due to the fact that a religion specific version is available, or it may increase their existing interest and make them cross over.

Compare these two ways of marketing Linux to such a crowd:

- "We have a distro called Ubuntu and you can install software related to the Christian religion easily on it with a program called apt-get, just like all other software." (Keep in mind that this crowd mostly has no idea what apt-get is and how repositories work.)

- "We have a special edition of Ubuntu that ships with all decent software related to the Christian religion."

Which would be more attractive?



And just why are Christians so much more "needy" than non-Christians?
Where did mhancoc7 claim that? Christians may or may not have certain special needs in their computing, just like Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and there's absolutely nothing preventing anyone from making a Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim edition.

I don't get what you're trying to accomplish. Millions of Christians around the world use Linux, Mac OS and Windows every single day. Who is this supposed untapped market? Christians are using Linux right now (or are they?).
See above.


Or maybe you're implying that Christians aren't as smart as Non-Christians when it comes to installing "Churchy" software? Considering the zillions of Windows users that have been doing that for years I find that rather odd.....
You seem to lack a basic awareness of the way the FOSS world operates regarding derivatives, and you're trying your best to take statements out of their context and give them unintended meanings just to make a case. Christians can install software that's already in the Ubuntu repositories with apt-get, as can Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, whoever; this has nothing to do with the rationale of including certain non-default packages as default. Linux Mint also does pretty much the same; it installs stuff from Multiverse as default, and by doing so, appeals to a certain niche to whom Ubuntu doesn't appeal as much.

And why is it that somebody hasn't come up with Buddhist or Hindu Ubuntu? Considering the number of Buddhists and Hindus on the planet it certainly would seem logical don't ya think?Why are you asking this in the Christian Edition forum? What answer are you expecting from mhancoc7? It certainly is logical; any Muslim can go ahead and make an Ubuntu Muslim Edition. You can mock, flame, speculate to your heart's content; it won't change the fact that as long as there's the smallest bit of demand for a derivative, its existence is justified.



Oh and...

mmmmmmmoooohahahahahahahaha
Fortunatly the evil Satan will have his way and crush Christian Linux Distributions before too long........
Sorry, old news (http://parker1.co.uk/satanic/).

NyanNyanKoneko
December 20th, 2006, 05:30 AM
I really like the idea of Ubuntu Linux catering to different people and organizations. Ubuntu CE takes a stab at appealing to a large portion of users who are very faith-based. That, in and of itself, is a great idea.

However, I think it would be in better taste to create a much more generalized version of Ubuntu aimed at religious institutions and people in general.

The main reason I feel it would be important to extend the CE version to cater to people of all religions is that it would better compliment the ideology of "Ubuntu." When one speaks of Christianity or Christians, you are referring to an exclusive group of people that is often tied into race and ethnicity. However, the main principal of Ubuntu is, ""the belief in a universal bond of sharing that connects all humanity." The concept of Ubuntu breaks boundries and borders that separate us from each other and allow us to see each other as a single human family.

However, creating specific Christian, Muslim, or even Buddhist versions of Ubuntu doesn't help to create a sense of unity between different religious users of the Linux In fact, I would argue that creating a Christian Ubuntu focuses more on something that is divisive in nature.

On the flip side, people are going to have different uses for their systems, and users should feel free to release versions of Ubuntu that cater to these needs whether you're producing a system as a corporate server or as a child's first computer.

Christians should be able to download a version of Ubuntu that allows them to study the bible or block offensive websites right off the CD. However, I think there's a desire for this sort of content in other religious communities and institutions.

Perhaps, the CE version can be expanded to add Hebrew and Aramaic support as well as copies of the Koran and other holy texts. Maybe OGGs of Buddhist chants can be installed on the system as well. I would recommend talking to people of different faiths and asking them would they would like to see in a religious version of Ubuntu.

But most importantly, universalizing the CE version to appeal to people of all faiths would also increase the user-base of this version of Ubuntu, one would assume.

Maybe a fundamentalist Christian might be offended to find the Koran on their computer or vice versa, but I don't think that kind of attitude is what Ubuntu and Linux in general should support.

Your thoughts?