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.
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!
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
Don't believe me? Check out the "Ubuntu Development Code Names Wiki", from which future codenames will be chosen!
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.
Gibbons are apes, not monkeys.
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.