Ubuntu Linux Review

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Monday September 27, 2004 @10:53AM from the with-a-name-like-shuttleworth dept.

JimLynch writes "Pardon me while I pimp one of my own stories. We've got a review of Ubuntu Linux up on ExtremeTech. Check it out. Overall we had quite a positive experience with it, we think it's going to be a good distro as it matures. If you're looking for an easy-to-install debian distro, give it a download." Update: 09/27 23:25 GMT by T : Eugenia writes with another review from USALug, and a 6-page comprehensive Ubuntu preview at OSNews, writing "Gnome's & Ubuntu's release manager Jeff Waugh also had an interesting interview detailing lots of interesting tidbits. The final version of Ubuntu is expected mid-October."

155 of 217 comments (clear)

I've just got to ask.. by jcr · 2004-09-27 10:56 · Score: 1, Troll

What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of distros?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
1. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Choices.
2. Re:I've just got to ask.. by pcmanjon · 2004-09-27 10:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  QUOTE " What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of distros?"
  
  One large benefit is the fact that every distro is different, has different goals and aspirations.
  
  Some people want a server, some people want a desktop, some want to run an FTP server.
  
  If your looking to say, run an ftp server, wouldn't it be nice to get a distro that has an ftp server built in to the kernel?
  
  You're more likley to find the distro that does exactly what you want with so many distro's around.
  
  That's the purpose, and advantage to the proliferation of distros.
3. Re:I've just got to ask.. by john_anderson_ii · 2004-09-27 11:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You must be new here....
  Don't take this wrong, but do you know a "linux user"? Most of us are little obsesive compulsive, erratic, and curious. We have nothing to do but become pastier and pastier while trying out distros.
  In short....we get one more to play with, flame, fight and argue over, and most importantly compare/contrast/disect to our hearts content.
  
  --
  Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
4. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What does that even mean? If you need your computer to do 'X' you don't change your OS, you get an app or two that does the job.
5. Re:I've just got to ask.. by OverlordQ · 2004-09-27 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  3. What are its main differences from Debian? Why would someone pick Ubuntu over Debian or any another distro?
  
  Jeff Waugh : At its core, Ubuntu *is* Debian. Our six-monthly releases are based on Debian's "sid" development branch, with lots of bugfixing and integration work (which goes back to Debian), and some special additions such as the very latest GNOME releases. Ubuntu 4.10, which we call the "Warty Warthog" shipped GNOME 2.8 in our Preview release last night. :-) We provide 18 months of high-impact, dataloss and security support with every release.
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
6. Re:I've just got to ask.. by john_anderson_ii · 2004-09-27 11:02 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Swapping a distro isn't swapping the OS at all, it's all Gnu/Linux after all. It's sorta like putting it in different wrapping paper.
  
  --
  Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
7. Re:I've just got to ask.. by DraKKon · 2004-09-27 11:04 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Some people want a server, some people want a desktop, some want to run an FTP server.
  
  Umm HELL NO. Look at what troube we have when a Web Browser is build into the OS. Keep it in userland people...
  
  --
  "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
8. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Scarblac · 2004-09-27 11:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of distros?
  
  No-one gets any benefit directly from the fact that there are a large number of distros.
  
  However, for each specific distro, there is apparently at least one person who likes that distro better than the alternatives. Which is enough.
  
  If someone decides he wants to make AbominationDistro, which is existing distro X but with the meaning of /etc and /usr switched around, and he creates it - more power to him, that doesn't influence me at all - and he has the distro he wants.
  
  --
  I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
9. Re:I've just got to ask.. by TCM · 2004-09-27 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To me this is "unnecessary choice". The choices only evolve because the existing procedures fail at particular tasks. Why not develop, for example, a clean, comprehendable, human as well as machine usable startup system to handle services so that one distribution could act as a server or desktop.
  
  Hell, isn't this the purpose of the SysV init system, to provide a separate runlevel for X as well as a stripped down network-and-servers-only runlevel?
  
  Choice is bad where it limits interoperability. You don't see browsers speaking Debian-HTTP, Redhat-HTTP or SuSE-HTTP, do you?
  
  People seem to confuse choice with not-a-standard sometimes.
  
  IMHO
  
  --
  Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
10. Re:I've just got to ask.. by jcr · 2004-09-27 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  You must be new here....
  
  Nope. I've been on /. for many years. Some people have even told me that have a low usser number..
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
11. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Chernobog · 2004-09-27 11:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Eventually someone will get one right.
12. Re:I've just got to ask.. by jcr · 2004-09-27 11:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  One large benefit is the fact that every distro is different, has different goals and aspirations.
  
  That's a feature, not a benefit. These are not the same thing. A benefit would be something like "not all distros are susceptible to the same failure modes", or the like.
  
  So, what is the benefit of many distros, as opposed to (say) switches I can flip in a standard distro?
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
13. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Alien+Being · 2004-09-27 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  An active arena advances the state of the art.
  
  I'll probably never even try Ubuntu, but maybe they'll come up with some diamond that will find its way into the distros that I do use. Or maybe Ubuntu will help someone refine one of the apps I use. Then again, it may not help me at all, but it might help someone else.
14. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Jahf · 2004-09-27 11:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't see anywhere in the quote you quoted that says anything about building anything into the OS in the manner that IE is built into Windows.
  
  "Some people want a server", doesn't imply that
  
  "some people want a desktop", doesn't imply that
  
  "some want to run an FTP server", while redundant, doesn't imply that.
  
  Unless you are saying that the distributions shouldn't even bother to include Mozilla, Konqueror or whatnot in their binary builds??
  
  There is a key difference between building a browser -with- an OS and building a browser into an OS in such a way that it (supposedly) can not be easily removed.
  
  You've been marked as +1 Insightful, but I have a feeling I just fed a troll.
  
  --
  It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
15. Re:I've just got to ask.. by JanneM · 2004-09-27 11:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Some people have even told me that have a low usser number.."
  
  Well, that's all depending on the perspectve...
  
  On Topic: Your complaint on choice boils down to the same question as when people decry the existence of mutliple desktop environment projects - who is supposed to enforce anything?
  
  Ok, assue that we have too many distros, and that it is hurting the community in some unsepcified way. How do you suggest reducing the number? You can assume that people building on, or using, any given distro aren't willing to volontarily dump their work just because someone says so. So how, then?
  
  And once you've accomplished your purge, how do you propose avoiding a couple hundred new distro projects popping up like mushrooms after rain?
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
16. Re:I've just got to ask.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-09-27 11:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I think this is the quote he meant:
  
  " If your looking to say, run an ftp server, wouldn't it be nice to get a distro that has an ftp server built in to the kernel?"
  
  --
  Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
17. Re:I've just got to ask.. by jcr · 2004-09-27 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Your complaint on choice boils down to the same question...
  
  Complaint? I was just asking what the benefit of distro proliferation was.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
18. Re:I've just got to ask.. by loid_void · 2004-09-27 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I know it doesn't matter, but don't forget, the ? goes inside the "quotation marks." :)
  
  --
  Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
19. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Jahf · 2004-09-27 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  I know, but he should have quoted that part ;)
  
  --
  It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
20. Re:I've just got to ask.. by jonnystiph · 2004-09-27 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of distros?
  
  Very simple answer for you. You like Debian, I like Slackware, my work uses RedHat, but we are switching to SuSe soon. Some people like Mandrake, other's swear by Gentoo. Every Distro fills a niche, every person has a niche. The more distro's the better. If you have an issue with an array of choices, you can use Windows or Solaris. Some of us really like to have a distro that provides EXACTLY what we want.
  
  You can not please all the people all the time, but giving people more choices increases your chances greatly.
  
  --
  If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
21. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:47 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You moderated him and replied to him?
22. Re:I've just got to ask.. by DraKKon · 2004-09-27 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  my fault for skimming the post and looking for ftp.. I'm not a computer.. I don't multi-task very well.. (aside from normal body functions..)
  
  --
  "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
23. Re:I've just got to ask.. by QuantumG · 2004-09-27 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To translate Jeff's market speak: you get commercial support with Ubuntu.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
24. Re:I've just got to ask.. by AvantLegion · 2004-09-27 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  >> You're more likley to find the distro that does exactly what you want with so many distro's around.
  No, you're less likely to find one that does what you want, having to research 50 distros all claiming to be everything to everybody.
  "Specialized" distros that are made for a specific purpose are great. Knoppix, Smoothwall, and Damn Small are examples of distros with specific reasons for existence. The problem comes when someone wants a desktop Linux distro, and there's an army of them claiming to be exactly what the user wants. After the user has tried 7 of them and found none of them were quite what they claimed, the user is forced to ask himself why he should bother with this whole "Linux thing".
25. Re:I've just got to ask.. by AvantLegion · 2004-09-27 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Very simple answer for you. You like Debian, I like Slackware, my work uses RedHat, but we are switching to SuSe soon. Some people like Mandrake, other's swear by Gentoo. Every Distro fills a niche, every person has a niche. The more distro's the better. If you have an issue with an array of choices, you can use Windows or Solaris. Some of us really like to have a distro that provides EXACTLY what we want.
  
  I've used many distros I like. But every time, they're missing something I liked from another distro.
  Instead of having 15 distros I like, I'd kill to have 3 that I love.
  The more we fracture, the more great ideas get spread out miles away from other great ideas.
26. Re:I've just got to ask.. by kantai · 2004-09-27 12:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So the core of your argument is this:
  
  Person A: Hey, I don't like the way X and Y work, why can't they work like Z
  
  Person B: Do it yourself or stop complaining
27. Re:I've just got to ask.. by AvantLegion · 2004-09-27 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  So why don't you work on putting ideas into the distros you want?
  
  Because I have my own projects to work on, perhaps?
  This mindset has to die - "stfu luser, do it yourself!". Some of us don't have time to fix our OS, email client, web browser, database backend, web servers, file servers, print servers, image editors, IM clients, office suites, etc. all ourselves in our free time.
  If Linux is only meant to be used by the people "scratching their own itch", then so be it. But don't then turn around and complain when nobody else wants to use it.
  Your post alone pretty much explains the existence of this story...
28. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Dirtside · 2004-09-27 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  So, what is the benefit of many distros, as opposed to (say) switches I can flip in a standard distro?
  Because some distros include things that someone else would not want in their distro at all. Some distros use mutually exclusive methods of configuring certain kinds of software. And who would get to be in charge of this "standard" distro? Who would get to decide what goes into the distro and what doesn't?
  Asking this question is like asking, "What's the benefit of there being so many brands of automobile, as opposed to being able to buy a 'standard' car and modify it to my liking?" The work's been done for you, rather than you having to go through and configure everything the way you want. Some distros will include certain software that others will not; a "standard" distro, to meet everyone's needs, would have to include every single piece of software that every distro out there includes now. That would take up a few dozen CD-ROMs.
  Hope that helps.
  
  --
  "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
29. Re:I've just got to ask.. by schvenk · 2004-09-27 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Overall, the multitude of distributions is a good thing. Every distro is designed with slightly different goals (and created with different skills), increasing the chances that a given person will find a distro that suits him. The fact that many distros are variants on a much smaller number of "base" distributions increases that, since it gives distro creators the chance to choose an already-stable OS and tweak and/or improve upon it.
  
  However, there's one major drawback when it comes to adoption of Linux by new users. If I'm a Windows user looking to switch to Linux, I will quickly discover that "Linux" is in fact a large number of slightly different operating systems, and the task of switching to it may suddenly become extremely daunting. I hope that with time, this sorts itself out and the choice for novices becomes easier...I think it will.
  
  BTW, I've installed Ubuntu on both a Powerbook and a Dell P4 without a hitch. Easy installation, easy to use. I like Fedora's customized Gnome layout and theme a bit better (and think it's a bit more usable), but good stuff nonetheless, and especially nice to have an easy-to-install, up-to-date distro for PPC.
30. Re:I've just got to ask.. by antiMStroll · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I clicked on "comments" wondering how far down the list we'd go to find a post ragging on Linux choices. Surprise!
31. Re:I've just got to ask.. by antiMStroll · 2004-09-27 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing the direction XP is going, you're saying we still have hope?
32. Re:I've just got to ask.. by webagogue · 2004-09-27 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Like the parent implies, I am somewhat frustrated with the proliferation of distros. It isn't so much the number of choices as it is that I have no idea what separates most of them. I need a resource that can tell me the true difference between distro "a" and distro "b" (and c and d, etc. etc.).
  
  --
  
  Knowledge is valuable. Ignorance is dangerous. Censorship is unacceptable. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10
33. Re:I've just got to ask.. by WhiteDeath · 2004-09-27 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of having 15 distros I like, I'd kill to have 3 that I love.
  
  and 5% of people that like them...
  
  It would be far more beneficial to have 3 or more distros, one or two of which you love and the rest which you like/dislike/hate (and someone else loves).
  
  This we already have (well sort of anyway)
  
  What we really need is somewhere that objectivly lists the strong / weak points of each distro in various scenarios - so that people don't have to try them all themselves.
34. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Digi-John · 2004-09-27 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, it is Debian with "Ubuntu" slapped in place of "Debian" and with some bugs fixed from unstable. Whooohooo. They don't even have a better installer, although the review makes note of the nice installer, which is EXACTLY THE SAME as in base Debian.
  
  Wewt, Debian with a cooler name. I'll check it out again when they actually have something more to offer besides extra GNOME themes.
  
  --
  Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
35. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Daengbo · 2004-09-27 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, this is like genetics. A new distro is like an isolated species, evolving new genes and a new sub-species, then being rejoined into the main species gene pool. There are many projects (apt-rpm for one) that occurred in specific distros and then found great popular appeal among other distros.
  
  Smoothwall (your example?) spawned several off-shoots, which highlighted problems with original distro. In Ubuntu's case (and UserLinux), these are just specialized Debian distros. This gives the user great flexibility in rejoining the Debian distro if they find some need unmet.
  
  I figure "whatever." If people want to create a new distro by repackaging stuff, then more power to them. I don't know that Ubuntu is doing anything new or unheard of, but they seem (from the article) to have done it well.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
36. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Daengbo · 2004-09-27 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  This is a major difference in the American style of puctuation vs. the British style. American grammar traditionally puts every punctuation mark inside the quotes, no matter whether it is germaine to the quote or not. British grammar differentiates depending on the context of the mark. Just for the edification of all you grammar nazis out the....
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
37. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Daengbo · 2004-09-27 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Should read "out there..."
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
38. Re:I've just got to ask.. by shess · 2004-09-27 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of distros?
  
  jcr, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME, we obviously have so many Linux distros for the same reason that we have so many variants of any other kind of software - it's easier to start over than it is to understand the problem and fix it.
  
  At least it's easier at first...
39. Re:I've just got to ask.. by BenjyD · 2004-09-27 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's debian unstable with a load of engineers patching bugs non-stop, GNOME 2.8 (D. unstable still seems stuck at 2.6), hardware autodetection, some nice configuration tools and a load of work on making it 'just work' out of the box.
  
  That seems a worthwhile project to me. The users get a nice shiny new distro, Debian gets a load of bugfixes and additional testing. How could anyone disagree with that?
40. Re:I've just got to ask.. by trewornan · 2004-09-27 21:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The problem comes when someone wants a desktop Linux distro, and there's an army of them claiming to be exactly what the user wants
  There may be hundreds of distros but a newbie only really needs to choose from among the main distros: Fedora, SuSE, Debian, Mandrake. That's essentially three and a half distros to choose from (Mandrake is Redhat based) - I can't see that as unreasonable diversity.
  
  A newbie thats considering Yoper, Arch or something equally obscure is asking for unnecessary trouble - as a quick question to a help board, chat channel, newsgroup, etc, will reveal.
41. Re:I've just got to ask.. by trewornan · 2004-09-27 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Evolution - the good distros improve by taking the best from others and the bad distros eventually fade away.
  This is the point of having source code available, nobody has to code everything from scratch you can take somebody elses work and use it as a base to build on.
42. Re:I've just got to ask.. by IamTheRealMike · 2004-09-27 21:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It doesn't mean anything. It's essentially a meaningless "feel-good" answer that doesn't address the underlying problem: we have bazillions of mostly but not quite compatible appliances, rather than a unified platform. The differences between most distros are negligable, and people end up choosing which one they use based on how many packages are available for it: in other words, how little of a pain-in-the-ass it is to install software. So, by "choices" the AC actually means "the ability to choose between a million minor variants on the same theme, but in which only two or three are actually usable by the masses due to the immense pain of installing and upgrading software on anything else".
43. Re:I've just got to ask.. by IamTheRealMike · 2004-09-28 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because some distros include things that someone else would not want in their distro at all.
  Like what? Don't name arbitrary pieces of software, you can always install what you want later.
  Some distros use mutually exclusive methods of configuring certain kinds of software
  Examples? Where this problem does exist (can't actually think of any off the top of my head), that should be fixed through standardisation.
  Some distros will include certain software that others will not; a "standard" distro, to meet everyone's needs, would have to include every single piece of software that every distro out there includes now. That would take up a few dozen CD-ROMs
  No it wouldn't. Presumably a standard distro would not *need* to have a subset of all possible software distributed alongside it, you could simply post binary packages on websites and use them.
44. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Buttercup · 2004-09-28 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  It makes no sense, anymore, to ask only what "users" get from a thing that the Linux community provides. "User" is a holdover concept from the days of big commercial systems, expensive software, restrictive usage policies, and social engineering that accompanied the nascence of computing.
  
  What are people getting from the proliferation of distros? Ah, well, I suspect they're getting choice, as other people have pointed out. The important part -- getting a good operating system for free -- remains fairly constant, unless you choose RedHat.
  
  How are you doing these days, JCR?
  
  MJP
  mjpeck@dashf.com
  
  --
  Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
45. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Taladar · 2004-09-28 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  The differences between most distros are negligable
  And you have tried how many distros?
  I tried at least half a dozen very different distros including SuSE, a few Linux-Router-Livecd-Distros, Debian, Redhat, Linux-from-Scratch, Sourcemage and Gentoo and most of them have lots of differences. The greatest difference with most of them is the kind of User they target. Suse might be a good distro for beginners but it is a real pain in the ass if you know what you are doing (much like Windows). Linux-from-Scratch is really nice if you know what you are doing, a pain to stay updated and unusable without a good portion of knowledge about how linux works. Router-Distros are fine for the Job they were designed for but it is far to difficult to install additional software on a Live-CD.
  
  So, now tell me again the differences between most distros are negligable and the only difference is the package count.
  
  --
  Linux is not Windows
46. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Taladar · 2004-09-28 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Some distros use mutually exclusive methods of configuring certain kinds of software I like to configure my apps in config files which I can transfer from one PC to another which Gentoo (and most other "User-knows-what-he-is-doing"-Distors) allows me to do. Most Beginner-friendly-Distros force you to use their Configuration-Tool with nested Menus and all the other shit that were the main reason I left Windows behind me.
  
  --
  Linux is not Windows
47. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Taladar · 2004-09-28 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  What we really need is somewhere that objectivly lists the strong / weak points of each distro in various scenarios - so that people don't have to try them all themselves.
  Most of these points are just to subjective to do that.
  
  --
  Linux is not Windows
48. Re:I've just got to ask.. by IamTheRealMike · 2004-09-28 02:34 · Score: 1
  And you have tried how many distros?
  Given that I maintain autopackage, which is devoted to distribution-neutral binary packages, and work on CrossOver which has to operate on many different distributions, probably more than you have.
  When I was talking about differences between them, I was talking about the actual software that makes them up. If you look at desktop distros (ie ignore issues like corporate support for servers and specialist router distros), the biggest differences from a software vendors perspective are:
  
  The package manager/dep resolver in use
  
  The packages/versions that are actually installed
  
  The custom patches applied
  
  The other differences like config tools aren't really relevant, and are slowly being reduced as more and more software is pushed upstream.
  From the users perspective then, the biggest differences are packages + how much work they make you do. I'd object to your characterisation of SuSE (and I guess similar distros like Fedora or Mandrake, or indeed Ubuntu) as being a "real pain in the ass" if you "know what you're doing". I like to think I know what I'm doing, I've certainly written enough software to prove it, and I use Fedora. Likewise, some of the best hackers I know are using SuSE or Fedora.
  The differences from a users perspective don't concern me so much as differences from a software vendors perspective. A 'vendor' in this case can easily be an open source project on SourceForge as well as a proprietary developer. These manifest in the packages installed in a base profile, and the patches applied to key components. I'd much rather that distros didn't patch things at all to be frank - experimentation is fine but there's far too much custom patching going on in distros that could just as easily be done upstream, but working with upstream is hard because they might want things done in a particular way or style, so the end result is you get lots of distros that hardly vary at all with no real standardisation or consistency. This is harmful.
49. Re:I've just got to ask.. by IamTheRealMike · 2004-09-28 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  If distributions are using config files incompatible or non-existant upstream then this has to be fixed. It doesn't really matter if you edit them directly or use a GUI, the end result should be compatible and in most cases is. The exceptions tend to be things like init scripts which aren't yet upstreamed in a sensible fashion.
50. Re:I've just got to ask.. by IamTheRealMike · 2004-09-28 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, pretty much agreed. One problem with having a bazillion distros is that bugs in configuration have to be fixed over and over again, and some users will never get them. Random example, Fedora/Red Hat uses pam_xauth to migrate X11 authentication information across "su" sessions. It means you can use su and not have any problems with X apps, It Just Works. But, even though this is a simple change to make, other distros use a variety of hacks developed before pam_xauth and never replaced like sux, manual xhost fiddling, and so on.
  Likewise, distro A may be able to detect network card B, but distro C cannot. Is the user of distro C really served better through the "choice" of having a working vs non-working network card?
  The distro system serves a purpose, but people write off the disadvantages with vague rants about "choice" and "freedom" without attempting rational debates as to the disadvantages.
51. Re:I've just got to ask.. by mixmasta · 2004-09-28 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  innovation.
  
  in other words people trying out new things. good ideas will float to the top.
  
  --
  #6495ED - cornflower blue
52. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Dirtside · 2004-09-28 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Like what? Don't name arbitrary pieces of software, you can always install what you want later.
  Scouring the web for a few dozen or few hundred programs is a lot more time and effort than simply having them all on one (or two) CDs along with the kernel. Like I said before, the advantage is that the work has been done for you, instead of having to go out and do everything yourself.
  Imagine buying a car, and the only thing it comes with is the absolute minimum in order to run -- body, chassis, engine, steering wheel, driver's seat, pedals, gearshift. If you want more seats, you can just go get them yourself! Radio, air conditioning, airbags, seatbelts, anyone can "install what they want later." And yet nobody sells cars like this to consumers...
  Examples? Where this problem does exist (can't actually think of any off the top of my head), that should be fixed through standardisation.
  How about package management? Who gets to decide what the "standard" way is, then requiring people who don't like that method to go out and manually install every single update, because (in your standardized world), why would non-standard packages be available?
  No it wouldn't. Presumably a standard distro would not *need* to have a subset of all possible software distributed alongside it, you could simply post binary packages on websites and use them.
  The whole point of a distro is that someone ELSE went out and did the work to put together a useful computing environment. It's a horrible idea to have to go get everything yourself, just so some people can feel better about standardization.
  
  --
  "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
53. Re:I've just got to ask.. by lachlan76 · 2004-09-29 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  We have nothing to do but become pastier and pastier while trying out distros.
  
  Get an old CRT, sit in front of it for ~6 hours a day, and you'll have a tan. Works for me.
  
  Well, I'm 14, so I have 2 go out for school, and that "natural light" or whatever it's called could be giving me a tan. Meh....
54. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Sinner · 2004-09-29 18:20 · Score: 1
  No-one gets any benefit directly from the fact that there are a large number of distros.
  I'd have to disagree with this. I've been using Debian exclusively for years, but I still feel I benefit from the existance of other distributions.
  
  Different distributions have different goals. Debian by itself would probably never have developed automatic hardware detection.
  
  Different distributions have different development and testing methodologies. This diversity of methods leads to stabler and more diverse software.
  
  Experimentation. Do I want to compile all my software from source? Hell, no! Do I want someone else to try it, fix the problems that arise, and note where it gives real improvements? Hell, yes!
  
  Security through diversity. Exploits written for Red Hat systems frequently don't work out-of-the-box on Debian. It buys me a little more time to get them patched.
  
  Suckage insurance. Even the best projects sometime become teh suck. Should Debian take a detour down that well-trodden path, I know there are other cool alternatives I could switch to.
  
  In the case of commercial distributions, you also get insurance against your vendor going insane (cf. Caldera)
  
  In short, you don't need to use a lot of distributions to benefit from their existance.
  --
  fish and pipes
55. Re:I've just got to ask.. by PygmySurfer · 2004-10-03 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  A newbie thats considering Yoper, Arch or something equally obscure is asking for unnecessary trouble - as a quick question to a help board, chat channel, newsgroup, etc, will reveal.
  
  Because newbies frequent such venues...
56. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Zemran · 2004-10-03 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you want someone to decide for you what you want and how you should use a computer then stick with M$. Linux allows you to chose what you want to do with your computer and how you want to do it. You can stick with a mainstream distro like Red Hat or SuSE if you like or get one that is more to your taste if you want to look deeper. The choice is yours or not as you wish.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
57. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Antique+Geekmeister · 2004-10-03 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  The openness promotes evolutionary diversity. The separate distributions produce "hybrid vigor", where the developments that enhance one set of features in one environment become more effective (such as security). In another environment, where other features are important, they become more enhanced (such as usability). Eventually, they get to compare the features of the development if not the completed version, and then cross-breed to produce a better tool.
  
  It would be lovely to be able to plan where to spend the development in advance and aim it at the perfect tool. But hey, this is development: such planning isn't completely possible, and letting interested people try to put it together in different ways creates vastly more robust tools than those created with a "single vision".
58. Re:I've just got to ask.. by Antique+Geekmeister · 2004-10-03 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Regression testing Gentoo isn't possible. For typical commercial use, or even reliable user applications such as game servers, you need a binary package manager, not a "rebuild everything from source" compiler-based distribution. So Gentoo is fun and useful and neat, I use it myself for some purposes. But it hardly makes other distros obsolete. OK, maybe it makes Debian obsolete....
59. Re:I've just got to ask.. by digitaleus · 2004-10-03 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  Customer: "Can I have a glass of water?"
  Waiter: "Certainly, sir, with ice or without?"
  Customer: "With ice, please"
  Waiter: "Sparkling or flat"
  Customer: "Flat"
  Waiter: "With a slice of lemon?"
  Customer: "No thank you"
  Waiter: "How about cucumber?"
  Customer: "JUST GET ME THE DAMN WATER!"
  
  Choice has a cognitive cost, and if there is no value to be gained by providing choice, then providing a choice is a bad thing to do.
  
  --
  content management for designers
Longer/better review by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 10:58 · Score: 5, Informative

I think the OSNews review posted today is better: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8407
1. Re:Longer/better review by cyclocommuter · 2004-09-27 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  OSNews may have a more comprehensive review but ExtremeTech targets a more mainstream audience and is more popular Mozilla traffic rank wise (ExtremTech Mozilla traffic rank 9,146 vs OSNews' 42,597). So this would imply that a simpler article on ExtremeTech might pique the interest of many more folks to look into the merits of using Linux.
2. Re:Longer/better review by trewornan · 2004-09-27 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry for the people suffering in Sudan but the rest of the world doesn't stop because one country is having problems. This is a stupid comment.
Or by OverlordQ · 2004-09-27 10:58 · Score: 3, Informative

See the Debian Planet story back on the 16th. Which linked you to the announcement and also an interview.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 10:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Their packages are not binary compatible with Debian packages, so you can't mix them in a single install. Therefore, they're not really a Debian child, although they're related by starting with the Debian package selection, and bugfixing/certifying from there. More like a Debian half-clone, sent to finishing school. Which will have some effect on drawing away some community contribution to Debian, as a partial fork. Kinda like that clone beating his dad's time at the pub with his fancy accent, but then unable to get past Dad's doorman to use the penthouse jacuzzi.

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Not Debian by natrius · 2004-09-27 11:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most Debian packages work in Ubuntu. For instance, many people have successfully used the Debian mplayer packages from an unofficial mirror on Ubuntu. The reason why they suggest not mixing Debian packages into an Ubuntu install is because the versioning may be different and apt can get confused. Most Debian packages are present in the universe section of the Ubuntu repository, so it's not that big of a deal.
2. Re:Not Debian by dschl · 2004-09-27 11:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Funny, I installed the 040925 nightly build on the weekend, and then added a nearby Debian mirror (unstable, of course) to the package list in Synaptic. The (20? 30?) packages I installed from sid all appear to work just fine in Ubuntu. You appear to be incorrect, please look around for some of the interviews with the Ubuntu developers (relevant section quoted in this comment). I understand that most of the Ubuntu developers are existing Debian developers, who can now work on Debian full time - this will help Debian rather than draw resources away. Based on what little I know about the people involved with Debian, I doubt that they would be likely to do anything that would mess up the distro which they love.
  Oh, and your analogy sucks, too.
  
  --
  Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
3. Re:Not Debian by JohnnyNoSPAM · 2004-09-27 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  I am a little surprised that there have not been more Debian-based distros out there. Another one that does come to mind is Linspire. http://www.linspire.com/ I have yet to try Ubuntu, but from time to time I had trouble getting Debian packages to work with Linspire while I was still trying it out.
  
  While I like having a choice of distributions, this very lack of cross-compatibility is part of why software vendors find porting software not to be a cost effective choice.
  
  --
  Get some.
4. Re:Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ubuntu says mixing Debian and Ubuntu packages is not a very good idea. They might not want something bad to happen to Debian while they create a distro that can fork away from Debian, but it could happen anyway. If developers' intent were the determinant of what happened to software, we wouldn't have bugs.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
5. Re:Not Debian by ninkendo84 · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Please stop spreading FUD you stupid troll. 1) Yes they are compatible. The packages conflict sometimes, but it's nothing you can't get around by manually selecting packages. a) And they're *certainly* "binary compatible". It's not like they run on a different kernel or something, stupid ass. 2) If you want to still have sid, but with minor fixes to make it more ubuntu compatible, you put the universe branch in your sources.list. It's pretty much the entire unstable branch, but on ubuntu mirrors, with additional ubuntu QA put into them. It works perfectly for me. I'm typing this from a laptop running ubuntu, dist-upgraded from sid. It works perfectly.
  
  --
  
  $ make love
  make: don't know how to make love. Stop
6. Re:Not Debian by ninkendo84 · 2004-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck, I selected html formatted instead of plain text. Point stands, albiet hard to read.
  
  --
  
  $ make love
  make: don't know how to make love. Stop
7. Re:Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  He started! MOM!
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
8. Re:Not Debian by dschl · 2004-09-27 14:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  They contribute changes to the upstream Debian package. Some of their developers overlap. They have a page clarifying their relationship to Debian, and they recognize that they are a subset. It would take a profound level of arrogance to imagine replacing a distro as broad as Debian, and arrogance appears to be absent from Ubuntu, from the name on down.
  You seem pretty hung up on the potential for a fork - odds are, we define the word "fork" differently. I view Ubuntu as a short-term, temporary fork, similar to the branches in the Mozilla project, where every new release is effectively a short-term departure from a frozen snapshot of the trunk, which returns to the trunk to refresh and renew on a regular basis. I also do not view it as the end of the world. Unlike rpm based distros, most Debian-based ones (or at least those that lasted, anyway, progeny, etc) do not appear to fork to the same degree as RedHat / Mandrake / ten thousand others.
  You might find the following blog entries from Jeff Licquia (a Progeny developer) interesting. He's got a lot better perspective on the issue than most:
  
  Being Debian
  
  Ubuntu and Progeny
  
  Ubuntu universe is a snapshot taken twice a year, without any security fixes or updates. I have run sid for several years now, and quite like living on the bleeding edge - I do not plan on updating only every six months, and I also don't worry too much if anything breaks beyond my repair skills - that is why /home and /var live on their own partitions. But Ubuntu fills a gap for someone who is not ready to deal with sid on a regular basis - who wants a different compromise of stability and freshness than the regular Debian release cycle.
  --
  Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
9. Re:Not Debian by grokster · 2004-09-27 22:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I have run sid for several years now, and quite like living on the bleeding edge - I do not plan on updating only every six months
  Ubuntu will also have a dev branch, once the first version is released. The dev branch will be similar to sid... daily changes etc.
10. Re:Not Debian by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-27 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's what incompatible means,
  
  No, it isn't. You said exactly "not binary compatible". If that were true, then NO PACKAGES would work. As abundant anecdotes have pointed out, SOME packages work. In fact, MANY/MOST do. Therefore you are wrong.
  
  "We don't support that, it might screw up" is NOT equivalent to "incompatible".
11. Re:Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, you are suffering from binary logic disease. There are more than two options: 100% compatible (eg. all Debian), 100% incompatible (eg. Debian/Windows), and X% incompatible (eg. Debian/Ubuntu). Even a little incompatible means incompatible. Especially because there's no way to plan which incompatible ones to avoid in the current system. "Unexpected behavior may occur" means "not compatible - we warned you, don't bother us". If a new distro could possibly claim "compatible" without that falsehood causing the distributors a support nightmare, it would. It didn't, and it isn't.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
12. Re:Not Debian by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Even a little incompatible means incompatible.
  
  If you invent your own definitions for words, you can pretend to win any argument- but we'd all prefer if you did that by mumbling under your breath, and not posting it 5 times on a public BBS.
  
  incompatible, adj: Impossible to be held simultaneously
  
  So, do you argue it is impossible to install a debian package on ubuntu? Or do you admit they're not incompatible?
  
  If a occasional conflict actually meant incompatible, then Debian would be incompatible with itself, because it occasionally does suffer an accidental breakage. Run "apt-get install php3 php4" to see it.
  
  There are more than two options:
  
  Yes, which is why I don't think you're a complete moron. You're not right, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're stupid- you could just be ignorant and prideful.
  
  No, you are suffering from binary logic disease
  
  In the past day, I've seen Twirlip of the Mists, Captain Carrot, and now Doc Ruby all attack people for offenses they are presenting committing. It's an ingenius defense, actually. To the numerous viewers who are unfamiliar with the details of topic, it appears ludicrous for a person to repeat an attack just made by his opponent. Therefore pre-emptively attacking someone for your own flaws is a superb technique for the dishonest rhetorician.
13. Re:Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I, along with millions of others, have been down this "100% compatibility" road before. In the 1980s, there were "IBM Compatible" PCs sold which weren't 100% compatible with the IBM PC, but which were mostly compatibile. Different support chipsets meant that some memory or graphics modes were unavailable. Companies sold lots of them as "compatible", but some programs wouldn't run - the owner never knew which, until they tried. The manufacturers got away with it, because they said "it's compatible, but not 100%" - until some started selling theirs as "100% compatible", which everyone bought instead. The same principles are at work here with Ubuntu and Debian.
  
  Because Ubuntu packages are built on machines configured differently than the ones on which Debian builds their binary packages, some Debian binary packages won't work when installed on an Ubuntu system. Ubuntu also implies that some of the source for some of their packages is different from some of the Debian source, meaning more binary incompatibility. Some packages will just work. All according to Ubuntu's FAQ. What we have is "compatibility", but not "100%". Which isn't acceptable to administrators who can't know which packages won't work, until they fail, and then there's no way out.
  
  You are trying to force a "black and white" scenario on a scenario with some nuances. Unfortunately, in this case the nuances all fall against you: any incompatibility means incompatible. If perhaps the packages which won't work are trivial, like some 1.x kernel, or some really unpopular driver module, the incompatibility would be negligible. But we don't know - the Ubuntu people probably can't guess, either, even with all the configs at hand. So the degree of incompatibility, unknown, is a serious risk, prohibitive to prudent administrators. Like running every red light late at night in a small town - everything is smooth, until you hit that improbable something. So there's a "black and white" scenario here, in-/compatibility, but it doesn't break the way you want. That's why I'm saying you have "binary logic disease", while arguing that Ubuntu falls into one of only two scenarios. You are oversimplifying in the wrong way, while the actual scenario just as simple, but with a different result. Trinary logic is the model for the compatibility conditions: none, some, all; your dysfunction is setting you (and people who believe you) up for incompatibility. My understanding of the multivalue condition here allows me to resolve it into the usable binary simplification of the practical reality. HTH.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
14. Re:Not Debian by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-28 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  until they fail, and then there's no way out.
  
  apt-get remove --f bad_package
  
  You are trying to force a "black and white" scenario on a scenario with some nuances.
  
  HOW can you continue to insist that, when you're the one who wants to see only two options (100% compatible or incompatible), and I'm the one who says it comes in variable degrees??
  
  Trinary logic is the model for the compatibility conditions: none, some, all; your
  
  Here we observe a typical Slashdot evasive technique... see how the post is filled with lofty, uncontestable vagaries which upon closer examination have no bearing to the topic of contention, but merely give the speaker some aura of reasonableness. By saying some things that make sense, the impression is created that he always makes sense.
  
  That's why I'm saying you have "binary logic disease", while arguing that Ubuntu falls into one of only two scenarios.
  
  YOU are the one who split it into two scenarios. You heard that Ubuntu isn't guaranteed 100% compatible, so you declared it is incompatible. Incompatible has a specific meaning in the dictionary, equivalent to 0% compatibility. (Or at least well under 50%) By disavowing the whole range of 1%-99% compatibility, you have blinded yourself to the shades of grey.
  
  dysfunction is setting you (and people who believe you) up for incompatibility.
  
  If we choose to run the risk of an imcompatibility, that's our choice. You shouldn't lie and claim "so you can't mix them in a single install". Making such a statement is quantizing the fuzzy truth level onto a single boolean point, whose veracity we can precisely test.
  
  Real life is full of shades of grey- so when YOU look at a grey situation and call it black, you've strayed from the path of truth.
15. Re:Not Debian by Minna+Kirai · 2004-09-28 16:40 · Score: 1
  That's what incompatible means,
  
  Let me show you some examples of what "incompatible" means:
  Solaris packages on Linux.
  
  Windows Installshield on Max OS X.
  Dreamcast and Playstation.
  
  THOSE are incompatible, because you KNOW that for any product from category 1, it will not possibly work on category 2.
  
  Ubuntu versus Debian? Odds are it will work just fine. Thus, they're not incompatible. Calling them that would make as much sense as describing humans as nonambulatory species because you've seen a few patients in wheelchairs.
  
  True statements: Most humans can walk. Some humans can't walk.
  Mostly-true statement: Humans can walk.
  False statement: Humans can't walk.
  
  Your claims fall into that 3rd category.
16. Re:Not Debian by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-28 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  You are almost correct. But not quite. You are wrong.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Wireless Card by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Finally, we were disappointed (but not surprised) that Ubuntu did not detect or configure the wireless card in our laptop. We've come to expect this, unfortunately. But it would sure be nice at some point if we could connect wirelessly right after installing a Linux distro, with no extra effort required.

I don't know what brand of wireless card it was, but if it was one with a Broadcom chip inside, well your SOL on that one. If they would give out the specs, we'd have drivers for them.
1. Re:Wireless Card by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 11:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It was a Netgear WG511 actually.
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
2. Re:Wireless Card by brandonlewis · 2004-09-28 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  I was actually very pleasently surprised when Ubuntu became the first (and only to this point) distro to detect, install, and configure my wireless card without my help. What's more, this is all on my old Titanium PowerBook where I've only had limited success before getting everything to work with Debian and Gentoo. I mean, this thing even suspends itself when I close the lid...without me having to do anything to get it that way. Ubuntu's "just works" philosophy is what makes me a believer, and I'm very much looking forward to the final release.
3. Re:Wireless Card by meganthom · 2004-09-30 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  I saw this after the fact, but maybe you check up on your messages. According to its website, Broadcom has Linux drivers. Whether they work, I have no clue, but am planning to try it out as I have a new laptop with a Broadcom chip.
  
  --
  Live free or die
Ubuntu? by raider_red · 2004-09-27 11:02 · Score: 1, Redundant

Could someone please explain where the name came from? I'm picturing African shields and spears flanking my computer.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
1. Re:Ubuntu? by iMaple · 2004-09-27 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  RFTA
2. Re:Ubuntu? by DraKKon · 2004-09-27 11:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Google: Ubuntu: An African Assessment of the Religious Other
  
  http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Afri/AfriLouw.htm
  
  and a lot of other things.. but I'm too lazy to look for them.
  
  --
  "It's not like your minds are as open as the source you love..." - Me to the majority of Slashdot.
3. Re:Ubuntu? by ArsonSmith · 2004-09-27 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Read? fuck the article.
  
  RFTA. Typical acronym for the Slashdotters.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
4. Re:Ubuntu? by bad_fx · 2004-09-27 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or, direct from http://www.ubuntulinux.org/
  
  "Ubuntu" is an African word, meaning "Humanity To Others". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.
Poor review by iMaple · 2004-09-27 11:03 · Score: 5, Informative

The review concludes that one of the few disadvantages of the disro is 'no VPN wizard'. Now isnt that a bit too picky !!! I would understnad if they mentioned the Text based Installer, no pakg selection , bad install documentation etc. but no VPN wizard is absurd.
1. Re:Poor review by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all. A VPN connection is something that any OS/desktop should be able to quickly and easily. Windows has had it for years, there's no excuse at this point for Linux to not have it.
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
2. Re:Poor review by iMaple · 2004-09-27 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ok I dont disagree with that at all but when u review a new distro you comapre it with other existing distros. I mean, I expected to know how the Uthu distro compared with Redhat , Suse etc, and not with MS Windows. May be a few years later if Uthu becomes 'THE' linux distro then you could crib abt Uthu not having so and so wizard.
3. Re:Poor review by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's helpful feedback, I'll bookmark that for future reviews. We can include a more detailed commentary on how it compares to other distros. Thanks.
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
4. Re:Poor review by ghideon · 2004-09-27 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What kind of VPN?
  A Cisco VPN client? A MS style PPTP VPN client? Freeswan? That web based client for Nortel Convtivity?
  It drives me nuts, and I'm the Network Admin at my company!
software and hardware by dankelley · 2004-09-27 11:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

In case you're wondering, it holds recent versions of software (Evolution 2.0, Gnome 2.8, ...).
The main thing, it seems, is that this disto provides a spoonful of sugar to make the Debian medicine go down. But this sugar may not be enough for laptop users. Quoting from the article, we were disappointed (but not surprised) that Ubuntu did not detect or configure the wireless card in our laptop. So that spoonful of sugar may be deceptive ... some real skill may be required after the pointy-clicky stage. Is it a good thing to mix the difficult and the simple?
1. Re:software and hardware by Soko · 2004-09-27 11:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  There are some issues with the lp module b0rking up Dell and IBM laptops, so that may be the cause of the wireless trouble that ExtremeTech had. It is with my Dell Latitude and it's IPW2100 wireless chip - see bug 1254 on bugzilla.ubuntu.org.
  
  That being said, they have released an evaluation install, not a final. That's scheduled for mid October, IIRC. It's therefore not suprising to see some things - especially wireless - flaky or non-functional in the eval release. The final is supposed to be a lot better - point, click, configure, done. Here's hoping.
  
  Soko
  
  --
  "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
2. Re:software and hardware by QuantumG · 2004-09-27 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  kick-ass laptop support is one of the stated goals of Ubuntu, so you can assume this will go away when the final release is done. As for a VPN client, yeah, ok, whatever, file a bug at bugzilla.ubuntu.org and in the description point at some existing stable free client that could be incorporated.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
3. Re:software and hardware by Max+Threshold · 2004-09-27 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that Ubuntu is currently under heavy development. Things are getting fixed pretty quickly. The mailing list is helpful with questions, and the developers are responsive to bug reports.
  To make a long story short, I liked Ubuntu so much that I finally ditched RH9. Ubuntu is now my main desktop, sharing my hard drive with Windows only because I play Dark Age of Camelot.
4. Re:software and hardware by dTaylorSingletary · 2004-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I had nothing but a good experience installing Ubuntu on my iBook G3. Detected all the hardware and was installed fully within a half hour.
  
  Excellent. Finally a PPC distro for the older computers I don't want to put Gentoo on.
  
  --
  d. Taylor Singletary,
  reality technician techra.el
5. Re:software and hardware by Rude+Turnip · 2004-09-27 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  How did it handle:
  
  1. partitioning to live with OS X (assuming you took this route)
  2. configuring X to work with the ATI graphics
  
  I might want to try this out on my iBook G4. Ubuntu is super fast on my Inspiron 8200, although I can't get X configured right with the Nvidia drivers.
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
6. Re:software and hardware by BenjyD · 2004-09-27 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is a preview release, so there will be some teething problems. Updates are being released virtually hourly fixing bugs, so they quality is going up all the time.
7. Re:software and hardware by dTaylorSingletary · 2004-09-28 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  1. I'm not sure about that, as I did not take that route. From the installer it was obvious you would already have had to partition your drives. I've had past experience setting up a dual boot PPC system, and it's not very difficult as long as you are comfortable with yaboot and have already partitioned your drives.
  
  2. X came up with zero configuration done. That said, I have a pre-Quartz iBook and don't know how the process would go with something more modern.
  
  Hope that helps ya out, or at least shows how I cannot. :)
  
  --
  d. Taylor Singletary,
  reality technician techra.el
Works with my Apple G5 by huiqbal · 2004-09-27 11:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Well at least we have to give Ubuntu folks some credit. This is the only linux distro that installed on my Apple G5. Installation was real easy on G5. They have PPC32 support only. PPC64 support coming soon. For those of us looking for an alternate OS for their G5 without paying yellowdog or without having technical expertise for debian and gentoo, Ubuntu is the distribution. The only problem sound card is not recognized. Even the thermal driver is working.
1. Re:Works with my Apple G5 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is the only linux distro that installed on my Apple G5.
  
  I can't imagine why you'd want to run Linux on a G5, or any other Apple hardware. Macs come with an OS that Linux can't begin to hold a candle to.
2. Re:Works with my Apple G5 by Edmund+Blackadder · 2004-09-27 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Macs come with an OS that Linux can't begin to hold a candle to."
  
  Oh, not the old BSD vs. Linux argument again.
Re:Oh WHY by JohnnyNoSPAM · 2004-09-27 11:15 · Score: 1

Yup, and a few more nights of piling up Mt. Dew cans all night while I play with yet another new toy :-)

--
Get some.
Why you should care by steveha · 2004-09-27 11:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Several people have already posted comments asking why the world needs yet another Linux distro.

I wrote a Slashdot comment explaining why Ubuntu is interesting. Click here to read it.

A comment by Doc Ruby states that Ubuntu is not package-compatible with Debian. I said otherwise in my comment linked above, but I haven't checked it out for myself yet so I'm probably wrong.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
My experience by DogDude · 2004-09-27 11:26 · Score: 1, Flamebait

New Linux user... it didn't find my sound card. I have no idea how to figure out where to start on that one, so... no sound. Also, the application installer thingy was pretty lacking. It kind of worked. It didn't find the latest versions of lots of various things, and the list was very short, but it kinda' worked. Other than that, it looked and acted like every other Linux distro that I've tried (I've tried about 6 in the past few months... I'm back to Windows). It worked for the most part, but nothing to get excited about. It did the basics. Unfortunately, it was still useless to my business. Bummer.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:This review sucks by artson · 2004-09-27 11:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right the review sucks. For instance, under the heading 'Installation', it says,

"At the end of the installation, we were asked if we wanted to use APT (Advanced Packaging Tool) to update our system. We said yes and our system was updated over the Internet before we even booted into our Gnome desktop."

This totally glosses over the connection to the internet. Was it by broadband, satellite link or modem? Did the installer correctly identify the modem if there was one and did it create a connection to the user's ISP?
Mandrake 10 installation fails utterly in this task, particularly if the user has the misfortune to be in North America.

--
In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 11:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Me: Hey boss, why don't we standardize on Ubuntu Warty Warthog Linux on the desktop.

Boss: Say, that sounds like it will decrease our ROI, while providing value to our shareholders. However, why don't you install Ubuntu Warty Warthog Linux on one test machine, and Indigo Salamander Pumpkin Dog Linux on another machine, that way we can objectively compare their packaging systems.
1. Re:Oh great... by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 11:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Hmmm...I think I'm detecting some sarcasm in your post. Am I wrong? ;)
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
2. Re:Oh great... by Knuckles · 2004-09-27 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, it's a joke, but you realize that this is the codename for a prerelease. And Longhorn is not so much better :)
  
  --
  "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:This review sucks by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 11:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are you referring to my install? I put it on a laptop (dual boot with XP), desktop (another dual boot) and in a vmware VM running under Windows XP. I think three different installs covered it nicely.

--
Jim Lynch
Tech Analyst and Community Manager
Not a fork by QuantumG · 2004-09-27 11:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Ubuntu is a commercial distribution with 34+ full time engineers working on it. Every bug they fix they contribute back to Debian or the relevant project. There are a number of really good distributions out there that have forked Debian, but Ubuntu is one of the few who gives most of their changes back to the community. So I say it's a branch, not a fork.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Re:Not a fork by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  If those patches work, and are accepted, then all will be well. I will use Debian, 100% compatible with itself, a week or so after Ubuntu sends their patches. This development is really good news for those of us building a Debian package distro from source, with patches from any trustworthy source.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Re:This review sucks by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 11:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Good point. It was a broadband connection on the desktop, a wireless card on the laptop and I used NAT translation in the vmware install. My bad for not including the details in the review. Sorry. I'll see what I can do about adding that in.

--
Jim Lynch
Tech Analyst and Community Manager
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-09-27 12:11 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
ob. ICTGRMHSWY by Frizzle+Fry · 2004-09-27 12:40 · Score: 1, Offtopic

In Catherine the Great's Russia, mare has sex with YOU!

--
I'd rather be lucky than good.
Why it's called Ubuntu by scruffy · 2004-09-27 13:05 · Score: 1, Funny

Because it's Utnubu spelled backwards.
And I'VE just got to ask.. by sulli · 2004-09-27 13:13 · Score: 1

What benefit, exactly, do Linux users get from the proliferation of impossible-to-pronounce-or-understand Linux distro names?

--

sulli
RTFJ.
What hardware? by bVork · 2004-09-27 13:13 · Score: 1

What kind of laptop were you using? What were the specs? For that matter, what were the specs of the other computers you used?
1. Re:What hardware? by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  The laptop was a Compaq and the desktop was a DIY (AMD 300, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard disk).
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
2. Re:What hardware? by JimLynch · 2004-09-27 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Oh damn it. I meant AMD 3000 not 300. Aaaah well, damn typos. LOL
  
  --
  Jim Lynch
  Tech Analyst and Community Manager
extrapolating a logical progression.... by zogger · 2004-09-27 13:16 · Score: 1

...in the proliferation of various distros, it appears that eventually what will evolve will be a state where every user has their own OS, custom designed by them, for their particular purposes. It's the ultimate anti vendor lock-in scheme.

And with the size of hard drives now and what's coming ahead, eventually app devs will stop using dynamically linked libraries and offer stand alone, install anywhere with any (kernel compatable) OS apps, truly opening up the personalised customization scene right to joe newbie user.

I know purists amd old timey gurus might hate it, but it's starting to make sense what with hard drive capacity and dvd sizes.

IMO of course
1. Re:extrapolating a logical progression.... by suckmysav · 2004-09-27 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  "eventually app devs will stop using dynamically linked libraries and offer stand alone, install anywhere with any (kernel compatable) OS apps"
  
  Oh god, how I am looking forward to this happening. It can't come soon enough IMHO
  
  --
  "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
2. Re:extrapolating a logical progression.... by BenjyD · 2004-09-27 22:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And when they find a security vulnerability in zlib, you're prepared to download every single app using it again? That's assuming the project is still even being maintained.
  Having each app statically linked or with its own libraries means you:
  
  1) waste memory
  2) waste developer effort
  3) waste bandwidth
  4) waste hard disk space
  5) make maintaining systems a nightmare (DLL-hell)
  6) Open yourself up to security problems - look at Microsoft's problems with their jpeg lib spread all over the system.
  6) lose the ability to upgrade a system - say the zlib developers release a point upgrade that doubles the speed of decompressing. If I'm using shared libs, I can download the 100kb package and *every app* using zlib is now twice as fast at decompressing. In a static system, I have to wait for the developer of every app to take the time upgrade their app to the new version and then I have to download it.
3. Re:extrapolating a logical progression.... by zogger · 2004-09-28 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  If I am not mistaken (it's quite possible I am, but here goes), I believe this is how mac classic OS works. I know on my macs I can stick an app just about most anywhere and it will work. I can make an alias of the app, stick that icon anyplace, and it will find it and work. I don't know how they do that unless it's by using the method of including all the files needed inside the app. And it's a pretty secure system. There's some beefs with classic, but insecurity is pretty low on that list.
  
  I welcome any clarifications from any knowledgeable person on that.
4. Re:extrapolating a logical progression.... by FictionPimp · 2004-09-28 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why does it have to be one or the other. How about using a shared lib that can be trumped by putting a copy of the lib in the application folder. That way if you have to update a lib for a new program, and that breaks an old program, you can just put a copy of the old lib in the program's folder.
Not compatible IA32 or AMD64? by de+Selby · 2004-09-27 13:19 · Score: 1

Do you mean that if you install it for AMD64, then the binary packages aren't compatible? That's the only way I could see it.

I installed from the AMD64 ISO and had to apt-get source, which I think only didn't work because it was my first time ever using apt-get... I wouldn't say there was a problem with Ubuntu.
1. Re:Not compatible IA32 or AMD64? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-27 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, Ubuntu says there can be problems, because apt-get doesn't distinguish between their Ubuntu binaries and binaries in the Debian archive. Since they're built on different machines, with different configs, possibly against different library versions, they can have binary incompatibilities. All this is from the Ubuntu FAQ, but they don't seem to think it's a big deal. I do. YMMV.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Re:This review sucks by I_redwolf · 2004-09-27 13:38 · Score: 1

Why is this modded as a troll?? The review does clearly lack any information. At least it wasted my time, not that slashdot hasn't already.
All I want to know by Cthefuture · 2004-09-27 13:53 · Score: 1

... is there an AMD64 (x86_64) version?

--
The ratio of people to cake is too big
1. Re:All I want to know by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-27 14:34 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yes! I'm running the ubuntu x86_64 version on an HP pavilion a650e with AMD64 3200+ cpu, everything works well. I'm also running the standard 32bit x86 version of ubuntu on my home pentium II system. So far I'm quite happy with ubuntu. Debian, gnome, python, just works, what's not to like?
Re:This review sucks by I_redwolf · 2004-09-27 13:53 · Score: 1

How about maybe putting it on a computer by itself? Discussing the specs of that system, the environment that Ubuntu is running in and describing the actual system? What features does it offer over Debian or add to debian? What if any problems were encountered during normal usage of applications etc etc. What sort of management system exists for the system. What has the system changed or how is it differentiating itself? Why would you run a distro in Vmware? That's clearly going to cause performance problems.

This review has absolutely nothing in it. All it says is I installed Unbuntu, funny name, and it didn't work with my wireless card but everything else is cool. I'm not trying to knock you as a person but this, like the parent poster said in more blunt terms is an extremely poor review.

If you write reviews in the future and submit them to slashdot be sure to let others read it before you thoroughly embarass yourself. Next time, and hopefully there is a next time (good technical writers are hard to find and you only get good with practice) try writing the review using the scientific method. It will be more compendious in an informative manner and come out all the better. It will also take longer to write than however long this took. If you write decent reviews people will come back to read more of your reviews in the future. If you write crap it stands out and is easy to discredit the author.

This is constructive needed criticism, neither me or any other person who reads reviews would consider this a review. I'm just tired of seeing these types of reviews on Slashdot, with that, good luck.
Where Ubuntu is coming from and going to by theolein · 2004-09-27 14:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

The name Ubuntu is zulu, a South African language, for God. The distro is compiled and managed by South African Soyuz tourist millionaire Mark Shuttleworth (Hey boet) and his company Canonical. There has been quite a bit of movement in South Africa over the past couple of years to get Linux into schools and small businesses, although the vast majority are still using pirated versions of Windows or whatever came with their computer.

This distro, from my point of view (I'm South African), makes excellent sense for people wanting to install Linux and basically just get up and working without having to fight through masses of obscure applications. It provides what 90% of average computer users need and use on their computers:Office productivity, mail, browser, messaging, graphics and media player. That's it, no fluff.

This distro is exactly what is needed (once they sort out the various bugs) for a home user or small business to get started. Given that there has only been a move to competition in the telcom business in South Africa this month, and that SA has had the world's highest rates out, wireless networking has not been a major feature in the SA IT landscape up until now, so I think that not working detection of Wireless NICs is not a major priority at the moment.

I'm really proud about this, as it gives SA its first distro aimed at the country.
1. Re:Where Ubuntu is coming from and going to by bigredradio · 2004-09-28 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  The name Ubuntu is zulu, a South African language, for God. The distro is compiled and managed by South African Soyuz tourist millionaire Mark Shuttleworth (Hey boet) and his company Canonical. There has been quite a bit of movement in South Africa over the past couple of years and we are unable to access our bank accounts from our microsoft computers. You are reading this message because a mutual friend suggested that you would be able to keep this information confidential. ;-)
  
  If you install this Linux distro on your systems, we have shell scripts that will automatically log into the bank accounts and transfer the amount of US$15 Million into your bank account. All you need to do is provide us with your account number and routing information so that we can update the config files for the autotransfer shell scripts.
  
  To employ and fund the developers, since we cannot charge for the GPL software, we only ask a small donation of US$5,000. This also helps offset the cost of running the website and burning the CDROMs.
  
  --
  Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
2. Re:Where Ubuntu is coming from and going to by khanyisa · 2004-09-28 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  The name Ubuntu is zulu, a South African language, for God. Absolute nonsense. See the homepage: "Ubuntu" is an African concept, meaning "humanity to others" It's the abstract noun describing personhood...
In the case of Ubuntu Linux, by leonbrooks · 2004-09-27 14:56 · Score: 1

you get Jeff's sense of humour, on top of a well-integrated and up-to-date GNOME suite. I can't imagine an interview with Mr Waugh that wasn't interesting in at least one sense of the word.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I think it's better phrased as... by leonbrooks · 2004-09-27 15:02 · Score: 1

..."show me how you got your right to complain". As in, show me your receipt, whether in Rupees, Francs or Man-Hours.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I thought... by leonbrooks · 2004-09-27 15:08 · Score: 1

...that argument was dying?

Yes, deem <G/D/R> included.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Libranet by Apostata · 2004-09-27 15:09 · Score: 1

I'll wait for Libranet 3.0, thanks.

--

This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
Yeeaaargh! by leonbrooks · 2004-09-27 15:10 · Score: 1

Backmasking in names! That's eerie!

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
For the love of H.P. Lovecraft by Matarick · 2004-09-27 17:22 · Score: 1

I thought the article was about Cthulhu Linux .
No wonder why the web page wouldn't load
Most? MOST? by jotaeleemeese · 2004-09-27 20:26 · Score: 1

It should be either none or all.

If you are going to fork, fork.

If you will not, don't.

Half assed solutions will hamper Linux....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
i tried it yesterday... by Val314 · 2004-09-27 22:57 · Score: 1

and i'M constantly getting IRQ 193... nobody cared or something similar.

i've noticed this with Gentoo to, searched google, but didnt find a soulution.

Ubuntu looks great but my mouse curser was stopped working ever 2-3s for 0.1 sec or something like this. i think its somehow related to the IRQ issue.

(System is a P4C, 2.8 GHz HT activated, i865PE Board)

btw: the current Linux desktop (i think it was Gnome 2.6 or 2.8) looks much better then when i've tried it the last time (i think it was KDE2 or something).
Not god - Community by bshuttleworth · 2004-09-27 23:09 · Score: 1

Tiny nitpick: "Ubuntu" means "people" or "community". Other than that, right on :)
1. Re:Not god - Community by theolein · 2004-09-28 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  true, I got mixed up a bit (I don't actually speak Zulu, but had it in school about 27 years ago) with the word Nkosi (don't ask me why), but I sort of hazily remember from school that Ubuntu is the plural of person, or was that abantu?
updating by zogger · 2004-09-28 01:19 · Score: 1

That can be automated as well. It's linux, everything is a file. The file has a name, it can be found, every place it exists in every app, and replaced. You could still download just the one updated file, and it could be replaced in a dozen places (whatever) where it exists on your system. The only difference is how many places it exists, but as your system is doing the replacing, it could still be one command or click for the user, no different than it is now. One place, twp places-a dozen, it wouldn't matter. It also allows you to isolate problems without knocking out all your apps that might share a file in question now, you could choose to only update the file inside of one "test" app, run it, see that it is acceptable inside your environment before you extend it to all the apps that are using it.. As it is now, if one file messes up or has a critical new flaw, it can mess up all the apps that by necessity link to it. You could isolate various apps using permissions, and still do some of your tasks in a safer environment of your choice.

And you can also run multiple instances of the same app, using different versions if you want, again, useful for big updates in a production environment.

I understand what you are saying on the issues here, but I see the advantages outweighing the disadvantages, and it could lead to the truly customizable OS of choice. And I am saying this with the thought of the future, as hard drive sizes get larger, more ram gets faster and is installed in a larger quantity, processors get faster, "persistant" ram gets better and more common, etc and so forth. You could even take the concept further into the future, every app is so complete it comes with it's own microkernel system.

Just thinking years down the road, that's all. I don't think you are in any danger of it happening tomorrow, although I'd like to see a distro that was designed that way now just for testing purposes.
1. Re:updating by BenjyD · 2004-09-28 01:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How is keeping twenty or more copies of the same library any better than keeping one?
  
  It reduces to the same problem of keeping libraries and the applications using them compatible, except now you have twenty or thirty as many files to keep track of.
  
  In which case, you might as well just use system-wide shared libraries, with a few compatibility libs installed for those apps that need it.
  
  You can do per-application testing with a chroot, if you feel the need.
2. Re:updating by zogger · 2004-09-28 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your 20 files you might need to keep track of are all inside the app, pretty easy to find. They aren't spread out all over here and yonder like they are now.
  
  Anyway, we'll see. I bet sometime in the future you'll start seeing complete apps, with all their needed files intact. It might start with the smaller apps obviously, but I bet we'll see it. The advantages will become apparent once linux leaves hobbiest/gurus and gets to joe users on widespread desktops.
Re:Are you kidding? by walterbyrd · 2004-09-28 01:46 · Score: 1

I use debian. I'm one of those weirdos who uses linux, but I don't worship every aspect of linux.

I don't want a distro just for me because that sort of thinking slows linux adoption, especially on the desktop. As it is, few desktop developers want to bother with an OS that has about 1% of the market. Then you take that 1%, and fragment that with 200 distros and a dozen different windows managers, and the situation becomes hopeless.
Dear submitters by hkb · 2004-10-03 04:42 · Score: 1

If you want us to bother reading your submissions and attached URLs, refrain from the use of such infantile terms as "pimp", "sweet", and similars and variants. You won't be taken seriously by the over-16 crowd using those kinds of words.

--
/* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
Dear replier by Zoolander · 2004-10-03 08:24 · Score: 1

This is Slashdot.

--
Meep.
ndiswrapper by Canis+Lupus · 2004-10-04 01:16 · Score: 1

I just setup ndiswrapper for use with the realtek chipset. I had tried to get the bleeping thing to work with the Linux drivers, but without the correct kernel version, you are SOL! (despite claims by realtek).

The ndiswrapper setup was not pain-free, but not that bad either.

http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/

-Dale

--
The real silver bullet to good programs is caffeine; lots and lots of caffeine! *twitch, twitch*