[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CeBIT booth



Wouter Verhelst wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:21:44PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,

only in German, but we should take this serious.  Perhaps some
people have a different kind of humor than we at the Debian booth:

 http://linuxlog.de/item/cebit2005ernuechterndeeindrueckegrosseerwartungen

To the benefit of us not well versed in German, could someone tell me
what this is all about?

Ok, I'll very briefly summarise the "page" (please note: I was not present at CeBIT, and I cannot comment on the event otherwise)

- Linux Enthusiast makes his way from Darmstadt to Hannover, needing to get up at 3am to get there in time - Linux enthusiast finds Debian wallpaper ("sex sells - good avertising", http://www.darkrock.co.uk/gallery/art/cindy_margolis_uses_debian.png ) printed in magazine quite clever, and and takes his pilgrimage to the Debian Booth (H18) in LinuxPark. - On the way he comes across the Ubuntu booth, has a stimulating conversation, and takes one of those ubuntu install sets for x86, and one for amd64 - Information: New ubuntu version mid april, till then, get acaqainmted with system. upgrading shouldnt pose too many hassles - Finally found the debian booth H18, it looks smallish and crowded. 3 people present. - Discussion develops only slowly, and is ended aprubply with something like : "Take the real thing", and one of those well-known sarge-installer cds once those discussing behold the ubuntu-cds - The debian people no longer seemed keen on discussion, only hatred (towards someone using the "wrong distribution") seems present

- Other than those, the Cebit- linux event seemed dominated by magazines keen on selling subscriptions, and enterprises into linux courses and linux support - Knoppix 3.8 (jointly edited by Klaus Knopper and CT magazine) seemed to be present in pallets. Very present at the booth of CT magazine

- Disappointed Linux user looks forward to the next Cebit and meeting enthusiasts there.

(not summarizing comments here)

Robert




Reply to: