Examining gOS With Its Ubuntu Origins In Mind

An anonymous reader writes "The history of computing is that of giants being toppled. Right now, Ubuntu is the giant of the Linux world but some have been suggesting that gOS' latest release — 3.0 "Gadgets" Beta — might be a serious challenger. Can this be true? The truth is a little more complicated, as the Ubuntu Kung Fu blog explains in its review of the new release."

Comments

Re:Marketing

[Enderandrew]

I can see why. You're wrong and you seem to be uninterested in learning this.

I was civil and asked the same of you. You've failed in that regard.

No it isn't. What gave you that idea?

Talking to the devs and hearing them complain about how few people work on the project, and how they don't have communication with the Ubuntu project enough to include the major Ubuntu features in their releases. The facts are pretty clear here. Fedora, Debain, openSUSE, and every major distro pretty much includes both major desktops. Ubuntu gives you zero choice. There is no option to install KDE. That option does not exist. You must download a separate project from a separate site. It does not include the same features. Cannonical places all their eggs in one basket, and a few guys have developed a KDE spin of Ubuntu. However Kubuntu and Ubuntu are not the same. Where as Fedora, openSUSE, Mandriva, Slackware, Arch, Debian, Gentoo, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, etc. etc. etc. have one distro with both desktops, and then some.

You officially have no clue what you're talking about, while at the same time trying to talk down to me. Don't be that guy.

Oh, so "vanilla" means "like debian".. that's ok, I like debian. Sounds like you have a different personal preference. This is probably the most legitimate thing you have said in this thread.

You don't know what the term "vanilla package" means, and missed my explanation that it means similar to the upstream packages. Since I'm a guy who likes to be factual, I gave Ubuntu credit for actually not having a vanilla kernel or toolchain, yet those benefits come from Debian. Here I explained that Debian is not vanilla, which is a good thing. Go re-read what I posted. You clearly didn't comprehend it.

When was this? I have a machine with ATI drivers, Ubuntu installed them by default and alerted me that it had done it.

If Ubuntu includes proprietary drives by default, that is seriously news to me. The entire purpose of forking Mint was to include proprietary drivers and codecs. However, I acknowledged this could have changed since the last time I tried it.

However, a quick check on Ubuntu's own website shows that Ubuntu doesn't do this by default.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BinaryDriverHowto/ATI

Are you lying, or is their documentation wrong? See, it isn't polite to call someone a liar. It certainly doesn't feel nice to be called a liar. Seriously, don't be that guy.

Things improve rapidly in the open source world.

It still remains the single worst distro experience I've ever had, and I see no major feature in *buntu to convince me to try it again. In fact, even the KDE devs were bad-mouthing Kubuntu for putting out bad KDE packages. Diplomatically they said certain distros had trouble building and compiling the right packages. It wasn't Fedora, and it wasn't openSUSE. Kubuntu was the only other distro to push out KDE 4, and those packages were universally trashed by people.

Ubuntu has likely improved overall. But so have other distros. openSUSE 11 is a major improvement over 10.x

Well, the official policy of Ubuntu became much clearer about 2 years ago when they started shipping proprietary drivers by default. This is about the time that Jeff Waugh left in a huff. Any strong statements you heard against proprietary drivers or codecs was likely coming from him. I believe the official policy now is "if you want people to stop using proprietary drivers, provide a better free driver" and this happens to match with my own personal opinion on the matter. Other people are militant about remaining pure and are willing to sacrifice a lot to achieve it, but I personally think this was one of the biggest reasons why Ubuntu broke away from Debian in the first place.. that and the insanely slow pace of development.

Perhaps the

Re:Marketing

[sir fer]

who's the bigger dick? the dick? or the dick that argues with him?

Also KDE is a festering pus-bag of cruft and I have used it in the last week.