Slashdot Mirror
Mark Shuttleworth Reveals Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Glyn Moody writes "In an interview with the Guardian today, Mark Shuttleworth talks about the upcoming Ubuntu Netbook Remix, a tailored version for ultraportables, produced in collaboration with Intel." The new version of Ubuntu is barely mentioned in this interview, but it's tantalizing -- SUSE looks nice on the HP Mininotes, but for people who are used to and enjoy Ubuntu, it's an option to look forward to.
What's wrong with /etc/init.d? It's just a matter of preference or old vs. new.
I'm not quite sure how it works in Ubuntu, but in Gentoo, there's a tool that manages the services that run with each runlevel, and I prefer using that instead of manually moving around shell scripts.
Not using conventions i.e (at least in the Ubuntu versions I've used)
I prefer the slackware way of
but there are few good things about Ubuntu, it made Linux and Open Source much better to new-comers, works almost always out of the box
It's friendly (but silly IMhO) to people who migrate from Windows, and it's the greatest achievement made in the last few years. friendly OS for Windows migrating users. I can tell you why you despise it. Because it's considered mainstream linux, and you are an arrogant prick who previously enjoyed looking down on the masses.
He said the future is in unlicensed software. Which, IIRC, was the end-game goal for GPL. GPL is a temporary system to enforce freedom in an age of copyright restrictions. If software in the future becomes truly unlicensed, then there's no need for GPL.
Pretty sure the placement of init scripts in /etc/init.d is a LSB requirement.
A guy on my team has the new hp mininote or whatever it is - with Suse. Out of the box wireless causes system crashes and the camera doesn't work. Maybe Novell wont mind the lack of publicity.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Diversity differs!
Hah! Prove it!
This guy's the limit!
There isn't much on the project's website: here
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
One of the things that's with Ubuntu is that it's the only group with a real sense of marketing. Granted, it's viral marketing, but if you look at http://ubuntu.com/ versus http://debian.org/ you'll notice that one is quite pretty and modern, and the other looks like it fell out of a wormhole circa 1996. I even tried talking about a site redesign on #debian on freenode once and got flamed by someone saying "why the hell should the look of a website matter?" Perhaps it somewhat matters because when I was a newbie and knew nothing about the merits of distros, I overlooked Debian as being a fairly amateurish distro because, well, its website looked amateurish. Yes, I know better now, but we should acknowledge at least a little that appearances do matter.
Of course, it's not just the website. Ubuntu also has an army of Diggers, and it's overall just a really easy distro to get started with when you know nothing about Linux, because the project has made appealing to that crowd one of its goals.
http://mediagoblin.org/
Uh, that's because it's called
My blog
Sure. I've used an unlicensed copy of Ubuntu many times. It says right there in the GPL: If you don't want to accept the license, you don't have to in order to use the software. So I didn't.
You could if you agreed to the GPL. If you didn't, then I imagine that the various Linux authors would take issue with your attempt to ignore copyright law.
No, unlicensed means unlicensed and public domain means public domain. Just because public domain software is unlicensed doesn't make all unlicensed software public domain. (i.e. A car stays in a garage. Is everything in a garage a car?) Unlicensed means exactly that: You didn't agree to a license to obtain the software. I don't agree to a license to obtain a book, either, but copyright law is still in full effect.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I think Ubuntu is a fine OS. I know there are other distros that are great and if you like them you should use them. However, Ubuntu provides two things a decent user experience with a great community for both novices and power users and more importantly momentum for "non traditional" Operating Systems. Any exposure people get to alternative platforms is a good thing. It's really nice to show people that there is alternatives to the crazy M$ way of things.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
They do that because they get better integration that way. For example, when you install Ubuntu, it installs OpenOffice with GNOME support, but when you install Kubuntu, it installs OpenOffice with KDE support. Plus all the art differences, etc. Plus, problems with KDE packages won't hold up an Ubuntu release and vice-versa.
My blog
I'm on the bandwagon. I've been using linux for 12 years, longer if you include machines administered by others. Ubuntu isn't perfect, but from what I've seen it's the best thing out there - it just works.
/etc is simple and clean.
:)
Everything is easy. Install a new package. Get the source for that package that isn't quite working right. Configuration. Update packages. Upgrade to the new version. It's all trivial, and just works.
And my folks are running it. When i visit I f with things. But when I'm not there, they can still upgrade packages, etc. And they're on dialup, and it still just works
We run suse on the servers at work, and i needed a very recent gcc with fortran and gomp. Ended up building from source, including a half dozen dependencies. On my workstation (ubuntu) "apt-get install gfortran libgomp". done. 5 hours vs 5 minutes. Actually, I think it took several iterations, maybe spent 2 full days installing it on suse.
Great for the power user.
Great for the beginner.
My blog
For the vast majority of Windows users, Linux needs an identity. They see Windows, OS X (Apple), and the great confusion and diffusion that is Linux. If Ubuntu is putting a face on Linux, then more power to Shuttleworth et al. For most new migrants, Ubuntu gives them the impression that Linux is fast, easy to use, and (more and more) friendly. These are tremendous inroads. Perhaps they can be starting points down other Linux paths.
There is a new version of Ubuntu, so what. In the summary there was also e mentino of Suse's package for the HP notebook, why don't I hear anyone about that?
The version of SuSE that ships with the HP 2133 has big problems: it's slow because it's burdened with inappropriate packages like Beagle, its wireless connectivity is poor, if you try to install packages, it asks you to insert a non-existent DVD into a non-existet DVD drive, external screen configurations are limited, and there's something wrong with the touch pad driver causing it to "stick". In addition, I found the administrative menus and preference menus to be cluttered and pretty obscure at times.
I used to be a SuSE user. I was going to give SuSE another try with the 2133, but it was such a miserable experience that I just blew it away and installed Ubuntu.
So, now you heard about SuSE on the 2133.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's great. I don't get why ubuntu needs to release a new "distro" for every single configuration.
Because it's easy for end users. And that's what should count. One reason Ubuntu is so popular is that they understand this.
Yeah, but which one is more appealing to the know nothing-"ooh this is pretty" crowd? That's where Ubuntu's website has it.
minimalist and EMACS.. two words I never thought could be next to each other.
"What's wrong with /etc/init.d?"
The only real problem is that if is to slow. In a standard system that uses init.d each script is run one at a time. But what if you happen to have one of those eight-core systems and a very fast disk array. Whouldn't it be great if the system could take advantage of those eight cosres to make startup run 8X faster? Solaris does this. It looks at dependancies between services and starts up as many as it can in parallel. Once you have a dependancy graph (that says for example that FTP and Apache need networking but FTp does not need apache then you can launch both FTP and Appache in parallel. You can also take advantage of the graph wen you stop services too to prevent errors like bringing down the network when it is needed by FTPd. The whole init.d and "run level" idea is just not well suited to this new idea.
I manage SUSE, RedHat, Ubuntu and Windows server boxes at work and i can concur. Ubuntu is by far easier to manage and keep running. When i need something or want to test something out its just an apt-get away on Ubuntu while it can take many hours on the others. Package management is where Ubuntu (or debian to be true) really shines. That coupled with the enormous repositories with most packages known to man makes it a very handy tool for me. I tried to use SUSE for a terminal server but i had enormous problems with it. For every new package i introduced i had conflicts all over and had to resolve them by endless sessions with "--force".
Debian should be very proud of Ubuntu. It just works and the biggest part of that in my view is that it got a package management system that really shines above everybody else. If it works because of hard work or technical merits i don't know but i do know it saves me endless of hours in the end.
I think Ubuntu chose the right way when they start at the desktops and then go for the servers. Even my boss runs Ubuntu at home and at work. When he run it at home chances are much greater he wants me to use it at work for our servers. Novell/SUSE must be out of their mind when they drop the desktop and gives it away freely to Microsoft. Why go for the enterprise market where competition already are fierce when you can go for a desktop market and the small company market? You can never take a market top down, it has to start from the bottom.
If Ubuntu do a real push for servers with easier setup of services and more or less key ready solutions they will make a real dent in the Linux server market. All that is needed is some polishing on the configuration procedures of some key components like OpenLDAP, SAMBA, Cups and some Groupware.
HTTP/1.1 400
Website design is as much about the audience as anything else-and the Ubuntu site is perfectly geared towards it's audience, as is Debians towards it's- which is why it looks any other F/OSS project page where as Ubuntu's looks like a standard corporate page.
open source modern art: laser taggi
Debian overloads you with so much information that it's impossible to get anything done.
I wanted to learn how to package up software and I found the full circle magazine more helpful then Debian's 6000 page document on it, such a useless website.
Slackware is older than Ubuntu, so it must be the better distro.
Solaris is older than Linux, so it must be the superior operating system.
Monarchy is older than democracy, so it must be a better form of government.
I can make my examples more absurd, if you want.
I don't understand why "monoculture is bad" necessarily. It does lead to more possible security breaches, but it also leads to a coherent support network, familiar UI standards across most desktops, and a larger developer and user base with which to improve/test the software.
I myself see no need to switch away from the distro that gives me everything I need and has the most active community. This idea that users will switch to other distros once they see the "choice" is missing the point - 1: users don't want too much choice, and 2: given the choice, users will usually choose either what's familiar to them or what everyone else chooses. This is how Windows achieved and kept popularity! It simply became the standard. Linux needs this.
The other misconception is that this is bad -- it is not. It creates underlying standards and consistency across the board, which will confuse users less and help them adapt to the change faster and easier. It's also a lot easier to support a single distro than a dozen.
So it may not *always* be ubuntu, but it very likely will. I think Ubuntu has reached the tipping point where its momentum will support its growth. More power to it, in my opinion.
"!"
Well, the big problem isn't with the Debian site; it's with the aspect ratio of most monitors these days. Flowing to fill the full horizontal width of the screen is actually a bad idea for such a text-heavy site, because such long lines are hard to read.
Look at the Debian home page in a browser window that is narrowed to allow about 7-10 words per line in the main text, and it looks -- nice. Not coincidentally, the Ubuntu site squeezes about ten words across into the main text.
I'm sitting here on a laptop with a screen that's designed for watching wide screen movies, but it'd be better for me to rotate it 90 degrees if I'm reading text.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Like most people, you're confusing two different concepts here: skillful vs. professional. Debian's site is clearly more skillfully done, and wins on technical merit. Ubuntu's site is clearly more professional; people are more likely to pay for a site like that. Debian's site is both technically superior and more amateurish. The very qualities you mention as signs Ubuntu's site is "more amateurish" are common and even to some degree desired in many professional web designs (fixed-width, for example, is required to accurately control precise layout, a common client requirement). If the Debian developers were trying to sell the site design, it'd look more like Ubuntu's, which is to say, more professional, albeit not as good in many ways.
Never confuse "professional" with "better" or "amateur" with "worse". The first terms relate to the compensation for the activity, the second refer to subjective criteria which are usually utterly unrelated to that.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
There's nothing wrong with the layout of Debian's site but the design is awful and hurts my eyes. It looks like it was made by one of the developers because it validates but looks like crap. By the way valid HTML/CSS doesn't make a website good. If it did I would be raking in money as a web developer because it seems that next to no one validates their websites except for coders. The really sad thing is that when using CSS you could alter the debian website quite dramatically with little time or effort and it would look 100 times better.
Time makes more converts than reason
It's perfect for the user who doesn't know anything 'cause they'll never even know what they're missing
As an Ubuntu user; I find that vaguely insulting. Linux in general is missing an easy entry into its world for outsiders. Ubuntu helps with this by bring friendly on the outside; having good support forums and services, but being a full distro under the hood.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer