Slashdot Mirror
A Gut Check On Gutsy Gibbon
jammag writes "Linux pundit Bruce Byfield looked inside the pre-release of Gutsy Gibbon and found what he calls 'Windows thinking.' His article, Divining from the Entrails of Ubuntu's Gutsy Gibbon, notes that Ubuntu is the dominant distro, having achieved a level of success that might be leading to complacency. He opines: 'Only once or twice did I find a balance between accessibility to newcomers and a feature set for advanced users. At times, I wondered whether the popularity might be preventing Ubuntu from finishing some rough edges.'"
Hm, I guess it seems Gutsy Gibbon isn't quite up to stuff. Prolly oughta wait for the next edition, the more refined Hairy Hardon.
When read out loud, in a fruity "posh" voice. ;-)
My response? Open a shell.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Well they've obviously become complacent about the name because it has "random adjective and animal generator" written all over it. Maybe they'll give it some actual effort next time when it comes up with Aroused Aardvark
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
So Ubuntu is the closest thing to a Linux distro that can fight off the Windows, Mac OS X will do okay but it will still be fan boys who get that. So unless we all want to run windows for another decade or two, we gotta respect what Ubuntu is doing for Linux distros........(sniff and a tear)......all over the world!
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
Unhappy with *[Uu]buntu's way of installing, not leaving many choices for the "IT professional"?
Use the alternative LiveCD. Note you don't need to "secure the system", since the default install does not bind any sockets listening. I actually consider it one of Ubuntu's strongest feats that you are not facing any choice of package selection whatsoever, so you can be sure you will end up with a sanely organized system you can build upon, if you want, or just walk on with the preset choices.
Next hilarious thing on his list is the boot menu - if you're actually an advanced-enough user to know about the possibility of testing your memory at bootup, I figure you also know about how to hit Escape to have GRUB's full menu appear.
He's got one point on fonts, as there can never be enough fonts included in an install. I personally do like Gentium though, and consider freetype's font rendering as Ubuntu sports it very pleasing to the eye.
On page two, where he's going to whine about "Proliferating package managers", the author imho show severe lack of understanding concerning Debian-ish package management. Well, let there be a lightweight update-checking-utility that does not come up with the whole bunch of X11-windows that is synaptic. It's a good thing it's there - it uses the same backends as apt-get, aptitude, synpatic, dpkg, adept, whatthefuckever use, and it saves you from manually checking for updates every so often. So would you please stop being anal about it? Thanks.
Also on page 2: "At any rate, the only way to judge how useful a package might be is to use it yourself." Oh wow, movie at eleven. I won't even comment on this, Cpt. Obvious to the rescue.
Page 3 is about security, and once again tha author seems clueless to me. An "intruder" on a default Ubuntu system can pretty much by definition (due to the lack of running network-interfacing daemons) only be a local attacker with physical access to your machine. Well, in case of physical access you're hosed anyway.
The point in criticizing default group memberships for the "desktop"-class of users is also beyond me. Well, that is how UNIX tends to work, and if it weren't for the desktop user to be able to, e. g., adjust the sound system's mixer levels or burn a CD, what's left for "desktop" usage to be done? No access via `sudo` means no (write-)access to other account's files and data. Besides, if you let people you don't trust gain local access to a machine via their very own personal account, you should probably check for your very own mental sanity/security first.
My point is, if Ubuntu actually behaved like he now states he'd like it to in his article, it'd be a flamefest of a different kind: namely criticizing how Ubuntu lacked in "usability", and how it would shy away "novice users".
Ubuntu is a very fine choice for someone starting out with GNU/Linux or computers all together. It's also a fine choice for someone more knowledgeable, since it's perfectly possible to stray away from the sane defaults the Ubuntu devs chose for the distro. If you happen to find your demands outstrip Ubuntu's capabilities, you're probably better off by creating a distribution of your own.
My 2 cent.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
who gives ubuntu versions these crazy names?
Ubuntu isn't successful because it's an operating system for advanced users only (like Gentoo). It's successful due to being user friendly to people who are Windows users who are curious about Linux.
With Linux I've noticed that user control is inversely proportional to user-friendliness. Operating systems like Ubuntu are made with user-friendliness in mind and that comes at the price of user control. It's quick and easy to set-up and use which garners alot of favor from the Windows crowd.
Similarly, Gentoo gives the user complete control over what applications, drivers, daemons are installed but is by no means user-friendly.
The writer of TFA really did a whole lot of whining about how little control he had over the installation and initial software packages. What did he expect? It's Ubuntu.
The game.
This has been brought up and explained many times on Slashdot.
Simply put, the name "Gutsy Gibbon" (and "Feisty Fawn," etc.) are developer code-names, just like "Longhorn" was for Windows Vista. The final released version of Gutsy Gibbon will be called "Ubuntu 7.10". So, if you are talking to your CEO, you will presumably mention "Ubuntu 7.10 Server" and not "teh Gibbon!!" Note that you won't see the term "Gutsy Gibbon" mentioned in an installed OS (except in the sources file for aptitude, but a normal user is unlikely to ever see that).
You can hardly fault the developers for wanting to have codenames for the releases. It's a useful means of differentiating between pre-release and final versions. Now, I fully admit that many users of Ubuntu stick to the codenames afer the release. If you read ubuntuforums, lots of people will ask things like "are you running Feisty or Dapper?" and so on. I guess that just means that Linux enthusiasts enjoy the whimsical names.
So, the developers are not interested in dropping the codenames, since the community seems to enjoy them. But please bear in mind that they are not "names of releases"--they are codenames that do not appear on the official releases. (For instance, check the download page: it mentions "Ubuntu 7.04" and "Ubuntu 6.06".)
I think the main problem the reviewer is having is that he wants thinks to be like linux used to be. The reason I like Ubuntu is that it tries to escape from that. For example:
- By default, the user never has to select any partitioning options, or even know what it is.
Well, most people don't know what partitioning is.
- Want to choose which software to install.
Once again, new linux users won't know the names of all the programs they might want. Ubuntu installs what I consider a reasonable selection. Talk of knowing exactly what is installed sounds more like server talk, for which you probably want Ubuntu server, which does install a much smaller selection of packages by default
- Doesn't send hundreds of confusing messages past at high speed on boot-up (me paraphrasing)
Well good, particularly because most start-ups have at least one thing which looks to the untrained eye like a failure
Other problems, including fonts, are possibly more valid. I'd be interested to know what an Ubuntu expert's opinion is on them.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Who's to say that any name is lame or not? More importantly, who cares? A cursory glance beyond whatever moniker a distribution has is really needed before a decision is made to adopt it. If you judge based on a name, you probably shouldn't be in a position to decide anyway!
If you are really worried about the name as it relates to non-geek circles, use their numbering scheme instead. Gutsy Gibbon is Ubuntu 7.10 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GutsyGibbon).
Personally, as long as the Ubuntu guys continue to churn out an excellent product, I could not care less about the name.
df -h
When dealing with the PHBs, feel free to use the version number instead, as that is the official name -- 7.10 for Gutsy Gibbon.
I just refer to it as Gibbon when necessary; when questioned about why the name Gibbon was chosen, I tell them it's to recognize the hard work of all the codemonkeys.
I haven't yet been challenged on the fact that Gibbons are apes, not monkeys, so I'm sticking to my story.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Ubuntu is very popular atm because it is very beginner friendly. Ubuntu seems to strive to make itself like Windows to attract more people. It is only a matter of time before Ubuntu looks and acts just like Windows.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
...sorta like that goofy startup with the weird name, what was it called again, oh ya, "google". WTH is "google", my boss will never go for that!
;)
PHBs, and the companies they run, who fixate on names instead of the engineering aspects of a product will suffer long term, as always, because they probably also make weird decisions based on completely unimportant stuff. Like, what's a "linux", like a big bobcat, right? Can't be any good. They give it away free? Can't be worth much...and so on.
With that said, of course gutsy gibbon is too weird, I prefer "randy rhino", the power tie of names!
I actually wonder why there is still this big iron thinking about root and "unprivileged users", especially around a desktop distro like Ubuntu. I am the only user of my system. If someone breaks into my normal user account and deletes all files there it is the worst possible scenario. If it is done from root, there is not much of a difference. And unprivileged users can also serve as spam bots, they have all the access to a heap of scripting languages and whatnot -- so really, what is the difference?
Just because it happens to be Unix, some people seem to have a sysadmin reflex that tells them root is more worthy than others.
FTFA
and
I think this is where us techies fall down sometimes. We assume that everyone who uses a computer wants to "Explore their system" or take "control over them".
Let's face it, probably about 90% of computer users use an office type application, a browser and an email client and the more advanced of them may use a feed reader of some sort. The most "control" they want over their system is to change the background and perhaps the colour scheme, and they want to do it easily, no code, no hassle.
And that's fine! Their computer is a tool to do their job. They learn how to do what they need to do and that's it.
So, it's a good thing that Ubuntu is easy to use. Us techies who want to "stray beyond the defaults" will find the way to do it anyway.
America, Home of the Brave.
This guy is obviously writing the review from the angle of a Linux Geek. A newcomer to the world of Linux will just be intimidated by all the shell commands this guy is talking about. I mean, really... is "apt-get update install xasd fdsix ikispkg mnfklsad --v" really that simple to remember? All those incredibly cryptic CLI commands are quite intimidating for the noob, and even intermediate users like myself tend to keep away from them.
Ubuntu is doing wonders for Linux in the popular mindset... users can cut their teeth on it first, then if they want, they can move on to more advanced distros. Don't be recommending that they cut their teeth on Gentoo first, please.
RH brought the linux desktop to the masses. it was roundly criticized for it being too newbie friendly. PEOPLE WONT LEARN LINUX! they all said. Later, the same allegations were leveled at mandrake(iva) and Lindows/spire. IT HURTS LINUX MORE THAN IT HELPS they all cried. Well now that ubuntu is taking the desktop maturity to new levels of easeness, its now completely acceptable, and welcomed by all. Ease of use is in.
The ubuntu cheerleaders, which is allegedly now ~30% of all linux desktop users, defend their darling distro till death. I would wager that many of these same people are the very same people who publicly smacked RH around, mocking those who used it.
My question is, where are those people now?
I grew up on RH, and use Fedora today. I was one of those who, back in the day, would get lol'd at in efnets #linux channels when I asked for help. Perhaps I am the kid who got virtually beat up too many times in my linux childhood, but it seems to me the hypocrisy level is in overdrive in regards to ubuntu.
Welcome to the circle of friends.. ;)
./configure --somespecialconfigureoptions
:)
And hey, if you want to do it, like you did on gentoo, than why not?
There are almost no reasons to do it like you do it there - the speed factor the self-compiling guys (*BSD, Gentoo) are pointing out isn't really there, thats so minimal you can forget about this argumentation.
1.) If you really have to - the package management is flexible enough to let you do this - try it like this:
Load the package you need to configure and compile like this, so the dependencies are resolved like you apt-get some binaries:
apt-get build-dep exampletool
Now do the configure stuff, you find it in debian/rules.
Then use this combined command to get the sources, compile them, and make a package out of them:
apt-get -b source exampletool
2.) Another, less automated way is to download the program you want to compile yourself, and then use a tool like "checkinstall" (its in the repositories).
In this scenario you do the usual things:
make
(and then instead of sudo make install you do:)
sudo checkinstall
Answer the questions and the selfcompiled program is also added to the package managment and also could be removed like you do it otherwise.
As you can see, if someone says "Ubuntu can't do this or this because its focused for beginners" it's just not true.
And not to forgot the rock-solid "Ubuntu-Server" flavour.. We put all our server also from Debian to Ubuntu, because its a lot easier to have actual versions of server-related software with a long-term support (security updates etc.) than to handle on D_____ with a massive amount of backports to achieve the same. And if you have security issues on packages there, you can hope, some people give the same massive amount of time in putting security updates up in a recent time.
Really, if someone can say me something I can't do there, please tell me, perhaps I am missing something
Ubuntu, a terminal, Python and Slashdot. Thats all you need.
Gibbons are apes, not monkeys.
Because Windows also makes those choices for the desktop user, and the idea at this stage is to get users away from Windows and on to Linux without them having to think about partitioning disks, one password for them and another for whatever root is, and having to look for a instant messenger app, so they can chat to their sister in Spain. It has to just work as much as possible: to that end the model seems more like OS X, which of course also uses a single user and sudo (and with the rise in popularity of Beryl and Compiz, Ubuntu is starting to look like OS X).
I can see the author's point to an extent, but Ubuntu isn't aimed at him, and he won't be able to approach it from the target user'sperspective.
I, much like you, grew up on RH and was mocked and ignored whenever I had issues. I also use FC7 now. But Ubuntu offers something to newcomers today that we didn't get 10 years ago: a community that doesn't suck.
Perhaps it is dumbing Linux down. My response: so what. People who find Ubuntu to be useful may be likely to try more advanced distros in the future. This is a foot in the door; the gateway drug so-to-speak.
The game.
You have a command line, emacs, vi, the gcc suite, perl, clisp and sbcl. What more could you possibly want?
As long as there's a terminal available and gcc, you just can't complain about lack of power user features in Linux.
He complains about the multiple package management programs. There's no problem here, since they all use the same underlying database, and a newbie would never know about the command line ones, and wouldn't need to.
A new user will get along just fine with the simplicity of Ubuntu on the desktop. A power user will hit the command line and have no problems.
It seems like this guy knows just enough about Debian to be dangerous, and is now cranky that Ubuntu is slightly different.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
So many people like to proclaim that Ubuntu is for the novice Windows convert. I contest that assertion! I have been managing a fairly large and quite diverse network for a few years now. Our servers range wildly from Debian varieties, to Windows 200x, and Solaris. Personally, I have been using Linux for several years and am not afraid of any "advanced-user" functions. I recently switched to Ubuntu (about a year ago) and won't be going back to my Debian roots anytime soon. Some like to spout that Ubuntu is the *nix O/S that "just works" - I feel differently about that too. Gentoo, Slackware, Red Hat, ... the all "work," it's the operator/administrator that "just doesn't." The question is should the administrator have to? Should time be spent in making the O/S work; or should time be spent configuring the Services and Applications to work?
The answer is simple - Ubuntu gives me a well-secured, base system with excellent hardware support and updates. On more then one occasion I have found the need to break the default Ubuntu base system (removing a default package in favor of another system) and was shocked to see a seamless transition. Try messing around with udev, hal, dbus, and hotplug on any other Linux distro and see what happens. Try swapping out X servers and welcome to Linux hell!
Lastly, Ubuntu has achieved what no other Linux distro ever has and that is their Exceptional support community. The Ubuntu forums (coupled with their online Community contributed docs) is one of the single greatest achievements in the Open community (IMHO) in the last 3 years. The support on the Ubuntu forums is not limited to Ubuntu and I see several non-Ubuntu users linking to Ubuntu forum threads, or asking questions there directly. The support I have received from the forum rivals all other *nix support I have ever dealt with including paid support for Red Hat and Solaris. I even ask questions on the forums non-Ubuntu related. I have asked Perl programming questions and got answers faster then I could through any other Perl or Linux forum. This is the true power of this Distro!
The Distrowatch ranking is only a count of how many people click through distrowatch.org to get to a distribution.
Because the Ubuntu name is so well known, the vast majority of people downloading Ubuntu do it by going to ubuntu.com directly, or get directed to ubuntu.com by Google.
PCLOS, on the other hand, is practically unknown. I would imagine that most people have never heard of it until they went to Distrowatch and saw it near the top of the list, and decided to click on it. In fact, that is how I first learned about PCLOS.
Since most people are discovering PCLOS through Distrowatch, while most people are downloading Unbuntu via ubuntu.com, it makes sense that PCLOS would show up higher on the Distrowatch ranking.
In fact, if you look at Google Trends more and more people are searching for "Ubuntu" on Google, even as the amount of people searching for "Linux" is dropping. You could argue that Ubuntu is becoming a replacement for Linux in the common lexicon. Meanwhile, "PCLOS" and "PCLINUXOS" hardly even show up in any Google searches.
I completely disagree. I don't think Ubuntu is successful because of Windows users. At all. It is successful because it fills a need that Linux users have been waiting for - a distro that is easy to maintain. Unless you are maintaining multiple machines, you shouldn't be doing many installs. (even if you are, you shouldn't be doing many 'installs') I don't really care if the install takes 15 minutes or 2 hours. I only install once. I have never really understood why so many reviews focus on the installation! Yes, it is important, I have done some really tough installs in my day. It is a critical step, but the MORE important thing is how you maintain the system. That is where Ubuntu really stands out. It is why I switched to it. I was on Mandrake (before it changed names) and before that SuSE and various RedHat distros. This was dependency hell. Even though SuSE and Mandrake said you could update your system, you could not. I ran into ALL kinds of issues, my packages were getting outdated and I couldn't easily update them. So I have now been on Kubuntu for over 2 years, and even did an Upgrade with minimal hassle (damn NVIDIA). Dependency hell is pretty much a thing of the past for me.
Ubuntu lets me USE Linux, and I can tinker where I want to - not where I have to. I still feel like the tinker-factor is still a little high for the average user (esp Windows users) but the strides that Ubuntu has made over other distros is immense.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"Janus"? "Frosting"? "Wolfpack"? "Hydra"? How about "Sixpack"? "Ides of Buster"? "Pigs in Space"? You're either a troll or an imbecile, I can't decide which. The codenames for Ubuntu are no more or less "weird" than they are for any other company, and all things considered, significantly less weird than many.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I just want to say that in *my* four years of using Gentoo I have never had anyone on the Gentoo forums, irc channels, or any of my colleages (academia or private sector) ever say that Gentoo compiled code is necessarily any faster than delivered binaries. I never had anyone recommend anything but -02 and -pipe for compiler options. What Gentoo does give you is the ability to easily get exactly the system you want. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether any particular piece of binary code is faster on Gentoo is purely on a case by base basis. People use Gentoo for choice, configurability, and on occasion performance.
From the Gentoo home page:
Thanks to a technology called Portage, Gentoo can become an ideal secure server, development workstation, professional desktop, gaming system, embedded solution or something else -- whatever you need it to be.
You should be able to add an
Option "Rotate" "UD"
To your device section to show the display upside down by default. It'll work with most X.org drivers.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
- Basic user - add/remove, updater
- Medium user - synaptic package manager
- Advanced user - apt-get/aptitude/dpkg etc in the terminal
His issues with the security groups are similar - a basic user is not going to mess around with those, whereas a medium user might, and an advanced user would configure it however they want to.For what it's worth, I recently moved to Ubuntu, and its balance between usability and configurability has allowed me to learn a fair bit about using Linux systems without throwing me in at the deep end like other distros do.
If you want gentoo use gentoo , If you want debian use debian, please don't expect every distro to follow your own ideas of the perfect distro and for god's sake, don't even think that your idea of the perfect distro should be considered dogma.
I think that as much as the author blames ubuntu for complacency out of popularity, the things the author is complaining about are not specific to this release which kind of destroys the whole article, as if the guy didn't know the things he is complaining about are exactly the reason ubuntu is so popular.
I RTFA this is a summary:
Color me unimpressed by this article.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If there's the option to do more stuff, you have to be very careful to design a UI which will lead ordinary users away from choosing that option. Worse are the "power users", who will try to explore every single option, whether or not they understand it.
It's a deliberate break from the "GNOME or KDE" question you get asked at install time. If you don't know and don't care, you get GNOME. If you know, there's always a way to get more choice -- you could download Kubuntu if you want KDE, for example.
And if you really know what you're doing, you could download the Alternate or Server install CD, install from that (a more powerful installer anyway), and add packages as you need them. Or you can do a normal install, and remove packages, add other ones in later.
In fact, I believe it's possible to "upgrade" a system between Ubuntu and Kubuntu and back.
Now, granted, maybe it would be a good thing to have all of this power as a convenient GUI option. But the choice is there, if you know where to look.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
while I found some of his points posing some interesting opinion that I felt inclined to, the one that really stood out as rubbish to me was the package management point.
The add/remove software is a great place for new users to browse.. it's simple to use and doesn't bombard you with libs and low level stuff. It doesn't claim to do everything (a point that he held against it) and lets the user know where to go to do the "harder" stuff. My younger sister was able to add software to her ubuntu system without any help or prompting from me and without knowing the names of project.. she browsed through categories that interested her (multimedia in this case) and then using their description (some of them weren't great, but most were pretty good to excellent), where two packages sounded very similar she looked at the bottom of the description where it says "this works well with (k)ubuntu desktops" and then if she couldn't decide she looked at the number of stars. She calls me the next day and tells me proudly that she has made the computer do what she wants without having to search the world - it was all there from the very beginning. My 16yo sister that has no interest at all in computers beyond getting her school work done and her music projects, became the best advertisement for ubuntu (and linux in general) for her peers.
6 months on and she is eagerly awaiting Gusty and will be upgrading it by herself.
There is nothing bad about having the choice between multiples tools especially if they engage with their audience at the appropriate level.
After all we could all still (and many do) just use vi to do everything in - that is not enough reason to put down the various gui text editors and IDE's etc.
I just can't be bothered.