Slashdot Mirror


Shuttleworth Answers Ubuntu Linux's Critics

climenole writes "Technomancer wrote: 'Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu Linux's founder, maintains that he and Ubuntu are doing right by the Linux community and the even larger open-source community. In recent weeks, Ubuntu has been criticized for not giving Linux enough support. Specifically, the complains have been that Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, doesn't do enough for producing Linux source code.'"

382 comments

  1. Proper link by yelvington · · Score: 5, Informative

    The IT world link takes you to an interstitial ad, followed by a godawful mishmash of crap.

    Here's a link to the original post: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/517

    1. Re:Proper link by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a regular Ubuntu user. I use it on 13 machines in my shop and personal life. Having it done and well integrated with easily obtainable extras makes my life much easier. From less powerful to my most powerful this product just seems to work. So, to that end I do thank Mark Shuttleworth for his efforts and I hope he realizes that he has made other's lives better.

      Not everyone contributes back to society or to the world at large in equal measure. Canonical does some things that others don't and others do what Canonical doesn't. To use code contributions to the kernel and to Gnome as a measuring stick just doesn't seem right. Let's be smart and look at the overall effect this has on the world.

      Here's to you guys.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    2. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good point. We should judge them on their use of brown. I think they're first place, ahead of the microsoft zune.

    3. Re:Proper link by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I like this article even better: http://blogs.computerworld.com/16651/ubuntu_vs_red_hat_who_really_contributes_the_most_to_linux

      To summarize:

      Atari vs. Commodore!
      ST vs. Amiga!
      Nintendo vs. Sega!
      Mac vs. PC!
      PS3 vs. Xbox 360!
      Ubuntu vs. Debian!

      All stupid and silly arguments that serve no purpose. Especially when Debian and Ubuntu are both part of the same family. (Of course that didn't stop Catholics and protestants from fighting.)
      .

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Proper link by geekmansworld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we can see the thought process here:

      Developing Linux Kernel = Valuable

      Getting Linux into users hands with convenient, easy-to-use installers, providing support, etc. = Not Valuable

      To borrow one of Shuttleworth's analogies, a brain can't function without a body to house it.

    5. Re:Proper link by StikyPad · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe I'm just unlucky, but my experience with Ubuntu has been a polar opposite. I can't boot into the Live CD on either my desktop or laptop, and about the only way I can get things to work seamlessly is to run it in a VM.

      To put that in perspective, I have OSX running natively on my desktop PC with 0 KPs since 10.6, with all components working except a PCIe NIC (which also doesn't show up in Ubuntu). Fortunately my onboard NIC shows up just fine in OSX, but again, not in Ubuntu, where I had to use a USB wireless NIC just to get connectivity to download my other NIC drivers. Even then, getting even binary video drivers working properly in Ubuntu is a chore, let alone the roll-your-own OSS variants. Which is no worse than other Linux distros, of course, but certainly no better.

      In my experience, Ubuntu is an overrated, overblown Debian fork that has added zero value, and possibly even removed value if the reports of demoralized Debian developers are true. I don't mind getting down and dirty with my OS, but if I really want to do that, then Ubuntu is not the best choice. On the other hand, if I want to keep things at arms-length (just to run a Linux-only app here and there for network administration) then Ubuntu is still not the best choice -- BT4 fits that bill nicely.

      I am only one or two data points, true, but searching for various cryptic error messages in Ubuntu App Center leads me to believe that I am far from alone.

    6. Re:Proper link by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > To put that in perspective, I have OSX running natively on my desktop PC with 0 KPs since 10.6, with all components working except a PCIe NIC

      That's interesting since I've had Ubuntu happily running on 2 generations of genuine (mini) Macs.

      Real Mac hardware seems to like Ubuntu better then your Hackintosh. That's a bit odd considering the fact that you wouldn't expect MacOS to be able to deal with much of anything that deviates from a genuine Mac.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All stupid and silly arguments that serve no purpose. Especially when Debian and Ubuntu are both part of the same family. (Of course that doesn't stop Catholics and protestants from fighting.)

      FTFY

    8. Re:Proper link by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There's only one linux kernel. At the time, there were no free kernels -- HURD was (and is) vaporware and BSD was mired in legal confusion. Ubuntu is yet another distro. been there, done that.

      Consider: You have 1 car and it gets stolen vs you have 10 cars and 1 gets stolen.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Or maybe you just suck at computers and should move on to other pursuits?

    10. Re:Proper link by g4b · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, so to sum up:

      * You tried the tailored Operating System to your Hardware.
      * You tried Ubuntu
      * Ubuntu was worse, than the tailored Operating System to your Hardware.

      If your Hardware has errors, or some specific quirks, which may not be detected by an overblown Debian fork (which however wasn't in the summary of tried Operating Systems - only the tailored Operating System to your Hardware was) you blame Ubuntu for not being userfriendly, as response to a post describing he was glad, that Ubuntu tried to fill small gaps for the end user experience, (I am speaking for those who still remember kernel compiling because of unsupported binary drivers, if there was something more interesting to do), and tried to satisfy the need for especially those people, who simply want to install linux, without really wanting to get deeper into the system - at least not every time. You blame Ubuntu for something, which it actually does. It tries to be easily installable by people, who do not want to learn kernel compiling and manual patching or for those who want to learn it, but not do it every time and for every machine they encounter - with mostly typical driver problems caused by licensing issues.

      You can take your Mac as an opportunity to learn how Linux works, detect the errors and file bug reports to distributions, you think this problem maybe should concern. Feel lucky. You can learn a lot from this experience. You might even be the one who fixes it.

      Your distro is just as strong, as the people supporting it. Hating canonical for just being successful and not delivering solutions to everybodies needs magically, is not what free software or open source is about.

      For my taste, they could invest a little bit more in the areas, they already do, and don't try to push too much on the server market. And support debian financially and by playing after their project principles. I am still glad about Ubuntu existing and happy user on everyday machines. As I am about other distros, which are used by various other machines I work with - where Ubuntu has nothing to seek.

    11. Re:Proper link by Flamekebab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure someone else will have said it, but I reckon this is one of those cases of "it can't be measured, therefore it must have no value". Ubuntu has done amazing work getting Linux more visible and better established, that alone is worth a significant amount.

    12. Re:Proper link by scdeimos · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From less powerful to my most powerful this product just seems to work.

      Granted, Ubuntu works pretty well with modern hardware. I've been surprised at how well it works with pluggable devices like printers, controllers and iThingies.

      Except when doesn't.

      After SMB mount found itself deprecated you wouldn't believe the pain I had to go through to get CIFS mount to work properly with a remote SMB share whose file system contained folders and files with Asian characters in their names. And it still doesn't create folders and files with the correct ugos - they're visible on all the Ubuntu systems, but none of the Windows computers until I specifically chmod them.

      A recent /. story (which I can't find to link at the moment) mentioned that Google reported Ubuntu to be the highest-ranking Linux distribution involved in search terms. In my experience that's probably because people are having the most difficulty with it in getting things working. There's usually several ways to do something in Ubuntu, and each way is implemented slightly differently to every other distribution.

    13. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well... same here in the case of Hardy. And I thought sticking to an LTS release would be safe enough but moving to Lucid presented a few problems. On my laptop (Dell D630), sound just stopped working out of the blue one day and I could not fix it for the life of me. I am back on Hardy now.

      But still ... I do appreciate their work and I think Ubuntu is a fine distro. My hope is that future LTS releases will look more like Hardy though.

    14. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What more should Ubuntu give back when it's already done a ton for Linux by --> Making People Interested in Linux

      I've stayed away from Linux for a long time and Ubuntu was the one I was willing to jump at. And I use it in my company now too. Maybe it's this or maybe it's that. Go have your Linux fan-wars somewhere else. Ubuntu is, if nothing else, a perfect stepping stone to getting people use to Linux so they can move onto other distros.

    15. Re:Proper link by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Hear hear. And: Go get 'em, Mark.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    16. Re:Proper link by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      Hear-hear!

    17. Re:Proper link by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So we can see the thought process here:

      Developing Linux Kernel = Valuable

      Getting Linux into users hands with convenient, easy-to-use installers, providing support, etc. = Not Valuable

      That seems to be the gist of the article, and is one case where some members of the OSS community have really lost sight of something important: code is not the only thing projects need. It is true that Canonical hasn't done particularly much in the way of code, but it has found other ways to pull its weight, particularly in terms of user support. And pull its weight it most certainly does. Whether or not it does more than other companies, I can't say: you can't measure it like you could lines of code or number of applications. But it is grossly unfair to call it parasitic: it does things that frankly nobody else is bothering to do on the scale that Canonical does it. It has earned treatment as an equal to the more established players, even if it fulfills a very different function from them.

    18. Re:Proper link by enter+to+exit · · Score: 1

      Very true. Also Ubuntu has raised the bar for other desktop distros in regards to "user friendliness".

    19. Re:Proper link by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Informative

      This I can definately agree with. I recently attended an open source software conference. Ubuntu and Fedora sent people there (I remember that Jono Bacon was there from Ubuntu specifically).

      The Ubuntu folks seemed actually far more enthusiastic about drumming up COMMUNITY support, rather than just digging up more programmers. They were encouraging everyone to help - not just with code, but with testing and QC, and their biggest push was talking up the importance of volunteers for doing user documetation and translation work. Neither of those is coding, but both are indeed very important.

      In general, it seems the Ubuntu just "gets it" as far as making Linux easier, more cohesive, and a true platform for USERS rather than just for programming geeks (even though I belong to the latter category :D). Now, I think a few of their ideas like left side buttons and their butt ugly color schemes could be imporved upon, but eh, nobody's perfect.

      I will say this though: I've used Linux in some incarnation or another (Slackware or Gentoo for the longer durations) essentially as a toy since 1998 or so. It was something interesting to play with. It wasn't until Ubuntu came along that it really started feeling like a real platform, and it wasn't until Ubuntu that I transitioned completely over to Linux (at least at home - can't kick Windows at work but that's not in my hands).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    20. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember, to most Linux advocates, you are NOTHING if you can't code

    21. Re:Proper link by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Getting Linux into users hands with convenient, easy-to-use installers, providing support, etc. = Not Valuable

      I can see how this might be a perception, but it's not reasonable. Lots of good C programmers are quite poor at systems administration. Maintaining a distro can be a horrible task, since you are essentially being sysadmin for a completely unknown system. The situation is made worse when programmers who write the source code you're implementing capriciously change things around (or break them) for no beter reason than to fit some trendy philosophical notion of how it should work.

      I once went down the path of Linux From Scratch, and the experience was a worthwhile learning for a single-purpose system. But doing that for a desktop box is just stupid, since it's just too much work to keep all its components up to date. Now, Ubuntu is emphatically NOT my distribution of choice (that is currently Arch), but anyone who is prepared to undertake the task of maintaining any comprehensive distro long-term deserves a round of applause.

    22. Re:Proper link by index0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      By that logic, you admit sales people are just as important as the engineers?

    23. Re:Proper link by Myopic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without attempting to establish equality, let's just say both of those are essential.

    24. Re:Proper link by wisty · · Score: 1

      Marketing and sales is as important as engineering. If you want to be judgmental, sales *people* may be worth more or less, depending on the person.

    25. Re:Proper link by worx101 · · Score: 2

      Yep, exactly... You can have the best product in the world, but if you cannot "sale" it to anyone, then what good is it?

    26. Re:Proper link by westyvw · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes. They also help their users learn Linux due to Ubuntu's fragile nature. Well Done!

      Seriously, the clockwork new release takes some of that pain out, but as a long time user of Debian, and its derivatives, I do find that Ubuntu has some really bad problems upgrading and for long term stability.

    27. Re:Proper link by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, unlike those other fights, Protestants versus Catholics is a pretty important one. Religion as we know it, at least in the Christian parts, was seriously shaken up by the reformation. Even the Catholic church which insists upon being the one true Christian faith, was forced to make serious changes some of which are still being debated nearly 500 years later.

    28. Re:Proper link by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Either way, cars are getting stolen, and that's very bad.

      Mapping the analogy back, either way, Canonical is contributing, and that's very good.

      Also, that presumes that Canonical is as good at stealing cars from people who have only one car. And anyway, it's more like Canonical stealing the hood ornament from the guy with one car's car, vs. stealing a car from the guy with ten cars.

    29. Re:Proper link by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      I and a tremendous number of other people would disagree with all of that.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    30. Re:Proper link by HermMunster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An engineering project that can't be sold is just a project.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    31. Re:Proper link by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and Ironically, the first distro that I could completely get rid of my windows partition was fedora core 3, which was released about the same time as the first version of ubuntu (2005 or so I believe)

      Ubuntu succeeds in marketing more than anything else, they had a clean name already when the linux desktop was becoming easier for the masses, and rode the wave.

      Initially the only difference with ubuntu as compared with other distros was the inclusion of proprietary codecs and drivers.

    32. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I and a tremendous number of other people would agree agree with all of that

    33. Re:Proper link by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About a year ago I upgraded my synaptic (the only user-friendly package manager I know so far). Turns out that the Debian guys missed a critical flaw which made Synaptic crash when loading the repos. Downgrading synaptic using command-line tools was a royal pain in the ass. That's the kind of errors that I hate, and the guys criticizing Ubuntu are much more prone to commit them.

      While I don't like Ubuntu myself (for some glitches I've experienced - ironically, in the user-friendliness area), I do agree that it has set the bar on user-friendliness. More user-friendly = more popular. More popular = more pressure on the devs to write software that just works.

      As an example, I'll use Mepis 8.5 - it's being released with the latest version of KDE. Well guess what, the installation screen is quite unusable if you have an nVidia video card. You're stuck at 640x480 (or 800x600 if you're lucky), and the installation screens are clipped. Sure, you can install the drivers in RAM, but then you have to reboot. DOH. All installed drivers vanish. Another problem that could be solved with community support.

      With more community support, these problems will go again after the devs realize that the world they're writing software for is NOT a world filled with closets stacked with old network cards, cables, old consoles, a hard disk full of debugging and developing software and regexp cheat sheets stappled on a nearby wall.

      As much as it hurts, the devs need to get off their clouds, open their eyes and see that the people who use distros like Ubuntu are people who have a life - ok, a busy life - and don't have the resources, the time, nor the brains to solve those pesky problems.

      I still remember the days where one had to edit the xfree86 .conf file by hand after following a series of instructions. I sincerely hope those days don't ever come back again.

    34. Re:Proper link by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An engineering project that can't be sold is just a project.

      You hit the nail on the head. I've recently been promoted to a more bureaucratic place at my company, and I've come to realize that a lot of things I considered of uttermost importance in software development were not as crucial as I thought. Now, I'm not saying they're not necessary. But I overestimated them. Also, I've learned that it's the sales department which makes the companies earn their income. No income, no salaries. No salaries, no employees.

      Linux devs who have never understood the management and marketing side of companies, simply lack the vision needed to improve and promote the kernel/OS they love so much.

    35. Re:Proper link by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Atari vs. Commodore!
      ST vs. Amiga!

      No! Those were all sixer machines. The real fight back in those days it was the anointed and holy sixers vs the evil eighters. It was the Trash-80/Coco/Kaypro people against the Commodore and Atari (and SWTPC) folks. Von Neumann vs Harvard (how you addressed your I/O ports.) CP/M vs well, whatever we had in the ROM or Uniflex.

      If you only knew the things I did to a C-64 (and what I paid for it.)

      Really, email me and I'll tell you stories.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    36. Re:Proper link by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The value of contributions to Gnome depends so much on the rest of the Gnome community, on the long standing Gnome/KDE rivalry, and other external factors. If you use contributions to Gnome as a major metric, shouldn't Canonical get some points for indirectly contributing to KDE, XFCE and such via their Kubuntu/Xubuntu connections?
              There's also Canonical's hardware certification program and their 3rd party software certification program. The hardware cert program has three tiers, and these are designed to give some needed flexibility to hardware makers and software (particularly driver software) authors.
              Ubuntu Certified is the most involved, and from Canonical's viewpoint, probably the most rigorous. OEMs submit systems to Canonical's testing facility. Certification and testing is done by Canonical's engineers.
              Ubuntu Ready is much easier for Canonical, as the OEMs self-test their systems using Canonical's certification test suite. OEMs still have to submit their results to Canonical for final review if they want to claim to be Ubuntu ready, but can also use some elements of the test software for other purposes such as internal validation. A good way to evaluate Canonical's over all contribution to the Linux community might be to include how well they have shared this and related code and how well they have modified it based on OEM feedback.
              Works with Ubuntu. This designation is used for peripherals, such as printers or USB storage devices, that don't usually need the time and associated costs of a more rigorous certification process for testing before it's reasonable to certify them. It makes it easier for makers of such peripherals to keep up with the Ubuntu 6 month release cycle.
              Canonical offers frequent symposiums and group meetings for hardware makers wanting to use this process - in fact, there's one scheduled this month.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    37. Re:Proper link by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ubuntu even runs on my 15" Powerbook G4 without issue, although it's less graceful with the fan control compared to OS X.

    38. Re:Proper link by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linux is GPL licensed.
      Ubuntu is using Linux according to the GPL license.
      If the developers didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have used the GPL license.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    39. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amigaaaaaaaa!!!!

    40. Re:Proper link by the_womble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are other distros with equally good installer that are more user friendly in some ways, which still manage to contribute code as well.

      Consider Mandriva. Much less well funded than Canonical. Better installer. Better config (I find myself needing to edit config files in Ubuntu for stuff I can use the Control Centre GUI in Mandriva). Mandriva all time contributions to Gnome 's are about half of Canonical's, and they have contributed significantly to KDE, and are still doing quite a lot of other stuff http://www.mandriva.com/enterprise/en/company/r-d

    41. Re:Proper link by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I really do not see what is so special about Ubuntu. As far as having a user friendly desktop is concerned, Mandriva is better and Mepis and others at least as good.

      I like Ubuntu derived distros largely as an easier way to get those big Debian repos - but that is not going to matter much to the average user.

    42. Re:Proper link by BlackCreek · · Score: 2

      I really do not see what is so special about Ubuntu. As far as having a user friendly desktop is concerned, Mandriva is better and Mepis and others at least as good.

      Because Ubuntu's marketing is better than Mandrake/Mandriva ever was, so users actually know about it. Some 5, 8 years ago loads of people wanted a Linux desktop. Mandrake had it, but everyone installed "server oriented" Redhat or Suse, because those were the names they knew.

      Besides Cannonical/Ubuntu went out of their way to give anyone a ISO file, back in the day, if you wanted Mandrake (Mandriva, now) they wouldn't just give you an ISO. So Ubuntu came along and really took the crown, despite the years of head-start that Mandrake/Mandriva had.

    43. Re:Proper link by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know. I'm a fan of Ubuntu, but I find that after three or four dist-upgrades, enough things don't work that it's worth doing a reinstall (keeping all the important customizations and custom installed programs, naturally - /home, /etc and /usr/local).

      Such as right now. One of my customizations was alt+left/right to switch workspaces, combined with a devilspie script to start common applications on particular workspaces. The idea was that since you switch between tabs/open files with alt+up/down in many of those apps, I could quickly move between and into applications where I wanted, faster and with less thinking/watching than alt+tabbing or similar.

      It worked reasonably well, but when I upgraded, it broke badly. It would frequently trigger a bug where all UI elements except menus become unresponsive - text fields, buttons, everything. The bug would also prevent all forms of workspace switching. The only way to get it responsive again would be to open up a menu and close it. If the bug triggered on a workspace with no windows, killing the X server was the only practical fix.

      I had to switch workspace switching to super+left/right (sacrificing elegant in-application switching) and still the bug triggers occasionally. I've tried to report it, but I don't expect it to be fixed - my setup is too unusual for maintainers to care, even though it triggers something that really shouldn't be possible (killing all non-menu responsiveness in Gnome). Next version I expect I'll do a reinstall, reactivate my customizations and hope for the best.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    44. Re:Proper link by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      And it was Commodore 64 (real computer) vs Nintendo Entertainment System (walled garden toy).

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    45. Re:Proper link by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides Cannonical/Ubuntu went out of their way to give anyone a ISO file

      Everyone gave iso files, but ubuntu marketing did one better, they sent you actual discs with art by the bucket load. I have around 25 of the 2005 first release of ubuntu, they formerly sent heaps to anyone that wanted them. Being a linux guy I gave them to a heap of people to get them on to linux.

    46. Re:Proper link by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it is entirely possible that the devs conclude it suits their needs, and the needs of their clients and don't really care what other random people think of it.

      Linux doesn't need to take over the world (as nice as that would be) it only needs to be good enough for your own uses for it to be of utility for yourself.

    47. Re:Proper link by Nethead · · Score: 1

      more c64 vs trs80 vs ti99/4a.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    48. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as it hurts, the devs need to get off their clouds, open their eyes and see that the people who use distros like Ubuntu are people who have a life - ok, a busy life - and don't have the resources, the time, nor the brains to solve those pesky problems.

      In that case you need to pay someone to take care of that for you. You can buy it from Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, etc. and then not worry about things not working. too many people seem to be confusing free with Free. Devs will get off their 'clouds' if you pay them for it.

    49. Re:Proper link by Cruciform · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Protestant/Catholic argument has no more point than the others, religious or not.
      Some people consider it important because they believe a magical sky fairy is going to invite them to their own little kingdom when they die.
      That doesn't make the argument important. Only dealing with the fallout that such nonsense leads to.

    50. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its all grate.The only thing we don't now is the back-doors on proprietary drivers they use.!!!

    51. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The contribution is not the problem. The problem is the Canonical and Ubuntu steals credit from those who actually contributes to software what Canonical simply use but does not develop.

      Open Source is about credit and if someone has not yet known, the GPL is about copyright, not about free price. Without copyright, GPL is nothing.

      And Open Source is about credit and fame for those who does job. People do not care do they get paid from the code what they give freely away, but that they get the small credit from it as back (nothing big) and later they can get even better jobs or get new features what others have developed by using the work.

      Canonical and Ubuntu are fame thiefs. "Uuuh... look how great and powerfull OS we have developed!" And no words from that Ubuntu is just a Linux distribution and the Linux kernel is the operating system in the Ubuntu. "Uuuh.... Ubuntu promise the software will always be free".... Ubuntu promise nothing, it is the GPL and other licenses what garantees that promise.
      "Uuuh... Ubuntu philosophy is that software should be free". Bullshit, it is the GNU philosophy, and even that Canonical did steal and presents it as own. Ubuntu (the african meaning) has nothing to do with the software. It is just about hospitality. GNU is about software and its freedom.

      Ubuntu fans are the biggest problem what gives the credit to Ubuntu and Canonical from things what those did not have nothing to do in the first place. Ubuntu fans builds a reality distortion field what covers Ubuntu community so they are totally blind about true open source community.

    52. Re:Proper link by jkxx · · Score: 1

      Well said, and is pretty much what I was about to post as well. Ubuntu has its own issues as does every other OS out there but to say Canonical is not doing anything of importance with Linux is just asinine.

    53. Re:Proper link by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's stupid because they're working on the same thing! And the thing isn't scarce like a physical good, so it doesn't matter who is contributing more, or if most people aren't contributing anything, since their use doesn't deplete the resource as would happen in a tragedy of the commons.

    54. Re:Proper link by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Ubuntu folks seemed actually far more enthusiastic about drumming up COMMUNITY support

      Bingo. I've been using and developing on UNIX and then Linux for close on to twenty years now, and I now choose to use Ubuntu on my home machines because of one thing and one thing only: the Ubuntu community forums. It's the first UNIX/Linux forum that I've ever used where the default answer to any question isn't "I'm far to busy to answer this. You've got the source, debug it yourself, noob". More often than not, there are actually answers to the questions!

      Linux for Human Beings is exactly the right note to strike. Ubuntu 9.10 was the first distro that I've ever recommended to non-techie friends and family as a realistic substitute for Windows or MacOS. Linux has been ready for the desktop for years, but Ubuntu is the first distro that actually presents it in a way that makes it palatable.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    55. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the page: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu

      Where did it all begin?

      Linux was already established as an enterprise server platform in 2004. But free software was still not a part of everyday life for most computer users. That's why Mark Shuttleworth gathered a small team of developers from one of the most established Linux projects - Debian - and set out to create an easy-to-use Linux desktop, Ubuntu.

    56. Re:Proper link by ricegf · · Score: 1

      I cut my teeth on Mandrake, and have used Mandriva as recently as 5 months ago. Mandriva is better at KDE, but Ubuntu is better at Gnome IMHO. Since I have a mild preference for Gnome, I have a mild preference for Ubuntu. (I also tried Linux Mint for 6 months about a year ago, and thought is was nice but not compelling enough for a permanent switch. Frankly, I missed the Applications / Places / System menus. I haven't tried Mepis for a significant period of time, so no comment there.)

      I have no idea why you think that big repos don't matter much to the average user. Aren't the ones who can't build apps from source also the ones who will most value the Ubuntu Software Center? Or am I mis-reading your point?

    57. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg to differ sir:

      "The Brain the Wouldn't Die":

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052646/

    58. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or for that matter Muslims vs. Christians, both from the same diety....

    59. Re:Proper link by lightningrod · · Score: 1

      Especially when you consider in the speccy vs cbm64 debte the cbm64 was clearly superior a feat later recreated when commodore drubbed the st for general use :)

    60. Re:Proper link by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Those were all real computers. The real gulf was between computers (which were really only used to play games) and early consoles (which could only be used to play games). Few people had both when I was a kid, and there was a bitter culture war :)

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    61. Re:Proper link by Rysc · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Once it's good enough for my own uses it needs to become good enough for yours, too, then the next guy's, the the next and so on until it's good enough for everyone.

      And then we win.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    62. Re:Proper link by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Also Ubuntu has raised the bar for other desktop distros in regards to "user friendliness".

      s/raised/razed/

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    63. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Initially the only difference with ubuntu as compared with other distros was the inclusion of proprietary codecs and drivers.
      Inclusion of proprietary drivers and codecs is huge from an ease of use perspective. Ubuntu was the first big distro that put aside open source zealot-ism and just worked for a lot of people. Kudos to Ubuntu for that.

    64. Re:Proper link by complacence · · Score: 1

      then what good is it?

      It's obviously still the best product in the world. Usually that's good enough for me.

    65. Re:Proper link by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      You're pretty right there, but actually I find that makes a big difference. I used to use Fedora at work and Ubuntu at home. Starting with Fedora 11 I believe, they had some issues with their internal ATI drivers that caused freezing on the Radeon 2400 in my iMac at work. Now ATI's Linux support sucks in general, but basically I couldn't install the proprietary ATI drivers because their drivers didn't support the current version of the Xorg server in use on the latest version of Fedora. And you have to install them yourself because Fedora is absolute about "no proprietary crap included".

      Ubuntu is just more pragmatic when it comes to things like graphics drivers, and ditto on the Flash plugin for Firefox. I installed the proprietary ATI drivers for my card, the Flash plugin, and even proprietary wireless drivers for the iMac Wifi card right from the Restricted Drivers GUI in Ubuntu, and it Just Worked (TM). I have wireless networking now, and I never had that out of the box in Fedora. I've had basically zero issues since I switched to Ubuntu on my work PC, and other devs in our company are starting to do the same.

      I'm sure my experience isn't universal, but I've had a better time with Ubuntu "Just Working" than any other Linux distro. I love it personally.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    66. Re:Proper link by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      ^This dumbass has never heard about Word of Mouth...

      --
      Here be signatures
    67. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traitor!

    68. Re:Proper link by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      About a year ago I upgraded my synaptic (the only user-friendly package manager I know so far). Turns out that the Debian guys missed a critical flaw which made Synaptic crash when loading the repos. Downgrading synaptic using command-line tools was a royal pain in the ass. That's the kind of errors that I hate, and the guys criticizing Ubuntu are much more prone to commit them.

      Was this on Debian or Ubuntu? If Debian, was it in the stable repo, the testing repo, or the unstable repo?

      I ask about Ubuntu because a lot of the packages in Ubuntu are repackaged from Debian Sid... the unstable repo. Debian's own comment about Sid?

      "sid" is subject to massive changes and in-place library updates. This can result in a very "unstable" system which contains packages that cannot be installed due to missing libraries, dependencies that cannot be fulfilled etc. Use it at your own risk!

      (Source)

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    69. Re:Proper link by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's been the sentiment of most Linux users I've known since they started using it. The vocal ones want to be "hardcore" and they have little tolerance for those that are not. I actually put off using Linux for quite some time because I was put off by the attitudes of the vocal user community that saw themselves as elitists for using Linux while others had a hard time using it. Now those people are complaining that the company that brought Linux to the masses (and I have to say, regardless of the Fedora and Mansnake fans out there, Ubuntu is by far the most accepted general user distribution ever), they aren't happy because that's not what they want.

    70. Re:Proper link by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why you think that big repos don't matter much to the average user. Aren't the ones who can't build apps from source also the ones who will most value the Ubuntu Software Center? Or am I mis-reading your point?

      The point is that if you have access to the repositories, you don't need to build apps from source. Those apps listed in the Ubuntu Software Center come from the repositories. (Actually the Software Center just shows a subset, but if you start up Synaptic, you see the entire contents of the repositories.)

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    71. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a large part of why the impact of F/OSS on the mainstream computing world is as limited* as it is: they value "throwing more code at it" higher than "making things actually useable".

      * This is not to say that F/OSS has had no impact. It obviously has, but with a different attitude, "The Year of the Linux Desktop" wouldn't be the running joke that it currently is.

    72. Re:Proper link by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well guess what, the installation screen is quite unusable if you have an nVidia video card. You're stuck at 640x480 (or 800x600 if you're lucky), and the installation screens are clipped.

      Nobody's fixed that yet? I had the same problem with Suse five or so years ago. I swore off nVidia then; any company that won't properly support my choice of OS (Whether Mac, Linux, or Windows) is a crappy company that doesn't deserve my money.

    73. Re:Proper link by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Also, I've learned that it's the sales department which makes the companies earn their income. No income, no salaries. No salaries, no employees.

      Huh? It's the product that makes the company. No engineer, no product. No product, no income. See, just as simplistic and almost as wrong.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    74. Re:Proper link by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>holy sixers vs the evil eighters

      You mean Motorola vs. Intel (68000/PPC v. 80x86). Yeah I remember that fight and participated myself, but it is more-or-less summarized by the Mac vs. PC bullet point.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    75. Re:Proper link by Altus · · Score: 1

      And at the same time, without dev's there would be nothing at all for sales to do. No product, no sales, no sales, no income.

      I have no idea how companies manage to get by with so much of the "us vs them" mentality. But then I have no idea how development groups get by with the "us vs them" mentality they usually have between the developers and the QA department.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    76. Re:Proper link by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I think it's even more optimistic than your view. Once it's good enough for my needs, I can in good faith promote it to more people. Maybe 1 in 5 of the people that try it stick with it, and 1 in 50 of those become a contributor. But they do become a contributor, which makes it better. Then more people can promote it, and more people try it, and more become contributors, and the cycle continues and open source keeps getting better and easier to promote and justify.

      If any open source project brings completely newbies into the open source world, at least a few of those new end users will eventually become contributors, and that helps us all out. So any project that does a good job of making things easier for newbies - and that's what Ubuntu tries to be - is ultimately a huge long term benefit to open source as a whole. I might prefer Debian or Fedora, and I had high hopes for Foresight because I like conary, but I have nothing against Ubuntu.

    77. Re:Proper link by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu has done amazing work getting Linux more visible and better established, that alone is worth a significant amount.

      How and where? Linux desktop usage or applications support has not increased one iota in the last six years, so I'm curious as to where this standard excuse for Ubuntu comes from. The difficulty people have is that Ubuntu's place in the free desktop world simply cannot be measured beyond free CDs and simple marketing blurb.

    78. Re:Proper link by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Nice distillation of the situation.

      But of course, if we couldn't sit around and whine about stuff all that would be left of the internet is pornography.

    79. Re:Proper link by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> Well guess what, the installation screen is quite unusable if you have an nVidia video card.
      >> You're stuck at 640x480 (or 800x600 if you're lucky), and the installation screens are clipped.
      >
      > Nobody's fixed that yet? I had the same problem with Suse five or so years ago. I swore off
      > nVidia then; any company that won't properly support my choice of OS (Whether Mac, Linux, or
      > Windows) is a crappy company that doesn't deserve my money.

      I just installed 10.04 on a bunch of ION boxes.

      I don't recall anything being unusable in this regard in the Ubuntu installer at all.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    80. Re:Proper link by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Consider Mandriva.

      Mandrake used to be cool.

      Tried it again after having been away for awhile and it didn't seem very good at all.

      It seemed like it was kind of geared towards selling commercial software (but there really isn't any).

      Whereas Ubuntu inherits from Debian that whole idea of having very robust, complete and automated software repositories.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    81. Re:Proper link by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      If you use contributions to Gnome as a major metric, shouldn't Canonical get some points for indirectly contributing to KDE

      All Canonical's done for KDE is give people the impression that it sucks.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    82. Re:Proper link by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      It's the first UNIX/Linux forum that I've ever used where the default answer to any question isn't "I'm far to busy to answer this. You've got the source, debug it yourself, noob".

      You know, maybe it's a generational thing (and here I mean Linux generations, which seem to run about 2-3 years) but I have never once in my six years of using Linux been met by such a response on any forum or IRC channel I've ever used for support, and that's a list that is much wider than the Ubuntu forums.

      Frankly, I think i've outgrown Ubuntu, or at least the community support. The kind of questions that get answered on the Ubuntu forums are the questions I got answers to five years ago. Once I got beyond "intermediate beginner" in my understanding of the system, the Ubuntu forums simply had nothing to offer me. And the IRC channel's so crammed full of people as to be utterly worthless.

      None of this should be construed as me trying to disparage Ubuntu. I think there's a really important place in free software for the "Linux for human beings" philosophy (although I'd say it's more accurate to call it "Linux for beginners"). But I'm no longer a beginner, so I realized it was time to move on.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    83. Re:Proper link by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      PC != Mac.

      Yes, Macs are PCs too, but I said PC to provide explicit differentiation. Apparently not explicit enough...

    84. Re:Proper link by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      RTFP. I am NOT using a Mac, I am using commodity hardware, commonly referred to as a PC. Yes, I might have been referring to a Mac as a PC (unlikely as it might be for a Mac user to do that), but if that were the case, there would be nothing extraordinary whatsoever about OSX running better than Ubuntu.

      I am speaking for those who still remember kernel compiling because of unsupported binary drivers

      Yes, I remember compiling tulip.o into the kernel too. No, you don't speak for me.

    85. Re:Proper link by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't know who made the video chips for my new netbook or my ancient Thinkpad, but kubunto intalled easily on both without hitches, and the video is georgous, better than windows. It was probably five or more years ago that I had the problem with Suse.

    86. Re:Proper link by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      None of this should be construed as me trying to disparage Ubuntu. I think there's a really important place in free software for the "Linux for human beings" philosophy (although I'd say it's more accurate to call it "Linux for beginners"). But I'm no longer a beginner, so I realized it was time to move on.

      Not really. As I stated in my original post, I started using Linux in 1998. I ran Slackware back when there was no real package repository - EVERYTHING was a hand compile for installation. I used Gentoo for years - usually was from a Stage1 install. For kicks I once even setup a LFS (Linux From Scratch) system. In that time I also tried at one time or another: Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, Caldera, OpenSUSE, Puppy Linux, Damn Small Linux, and FreeBSD (not technically a Linux but same general idea). I have a BS in Computer Science (curriculum wasn't based on Linux, but was based on another Unix system - Solaris), and know my way around a compiler pretty darned good.

      I don't think many definitions of beginner would classify me as a Linux beginner. I use Ubuntu. There comes a time when you want a system to just WORK. Not tinker with, not play with, you need something to get your day to day computer tasks done. When I'm ready to sit down with my coffee and web browse, I don't want to worry about compiler flags, dependencies, or any other non-sense. I want the computer to work. Ubuntu does that. It's finally an OSS system that I feel I can sit down to and truly use as a day-to-day OS.

      Nowadays, when I want to tinker with something, I boot up Haiku in a virtual machine . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    87. Re:Proper link by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      It does need to take over the world, actually. Not being sarcastic. The cost of living is going up all over the world due to the rich stealing from the poor, the useless stealing from those who actually do productive work. Open source software fulfilling everyone's need is important for improving everyone's quality of life, regardless of if it is used personally at home or used in the government i.e. in turn lowering taxes. Proprietary software is wasteful, and that cost is reflected in everything you buy, which in turn reflects in your quality of life.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    88. Re:Proper link by mldi · · Score: 1

      If you use contributions to Gnome as a major metric, shouldn't Canonical get some points for indirectly contributing to KDE

      All Canonical's done for KDE is give people the impression that it sucks.

      Wait a sec, it doesn't suck? I KEED, I KEED!

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    89. Re:Proper link by mldi · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu has done amazing work getting Linux more visible and better established, that alone is worth a significant amount.

      How and where? Linux desktop usage or applications support has not increased one iota in the last six years, so I'm curious as to where this standard excuse for Ubuntu comes from. The difficulty people have is that Ubuntu's place in the free desktop world simply cannot be measured beyond free CDs and simple marketing blurb.

      Where the hell are you getting the idea that usage hasn't increased in the last 6 years?

      From this Wikipedia entry:

      According to W3Counter webpage hits the Linux desktop market share increased 62% from 1.32% to 2.13% between mid 2007 and the beginning of 2009, while Windows use fell from 95.52% to 88.77% in the same period, a drop of 7%.

      And then, under "Reasons for Adoption":

      A report in The Economist in December 2007 said: "Linux has swiftly become popular in small businesses and the home. That’s largely the doing of Gutsy Gibbon, the code-name for the Ubuntu 7.10 from Canonical. Along with distributions such as Linspire, Mint, Xandros, OpenSUSE and gOS, Ubuntu (and its siblings Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Xubuntu) has smoothed most of Linux’s geeky edges while polishing it for the desktop. No question, Gutsy Gibbon is the sleekest, best integrated and most user-friendly Linux distribution yet. It’s now simpler to set up and configure than Windows."

      So, I would say the Linux community has plenty to thank Canonical for.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    90. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Motorola vs. Intel (68000/PPC v. 80x86).

      It goes further back than that. Try 6800/6502 vs 8080 .
      Now get off my lawn. oh, wait, it's you

    91. Re:Proper link by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      That seems to be the gist of the article, and is one case where some members of the OSS community have really lost sight of something important: code is not the only thing projects need.

      THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for pointing this out. People forget that code isn't only an end unto itself...

    92. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >As much as it hurts, the devs need to get off their clouds, open their eyes and see that the people who use distros like Ubuntu are people who have a life - ok, a busy life - and don't have the resources, the time, nor the brains to solve those pesky problems.

      hahaha. So your answer is: someone else fix it for me, I'm too busy. thanks for validating the arguement we were reading about. Ubuntu=drain on the community with very little help given back.

    93. Re:Proper link by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't understand that attitude either. Canonical has done huge things for making Linux more usable to people, and I'm glad they have. I hope they profit from it and thereby encourage others to get into the game.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    94. Re:Proper link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Salespeople are quite happy to sell a product that doesn't exist... so you can have income without a product.

    95. Re:Proper link by asecure · · Score: 1

      Huh? It's the product that makes the company. No engineer, no product. No product, no income. See, just as simplistic and almost as wrong.

      huh? never heard of the service industry?

    96. Re:Proper link by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstood me. I'm certainly not saying that everyone who uses Ubuntu is a rookie. I'm saying that the community that they've built around it is geared toward beginners. And that's fine. Hell, more than fine, that's a good thing for free software, we need that. But (and as a non-beginner yourself, I'm sure you'll get this) once I got past a certain point, the Ubuntu community ceased to be very helpful to me, because I was more knowledgeable than most of the people that I would have been looking to for help (be it on the forums or the IRC or whatever). I guess where you and I might differ is that I didn't feel like I was knowledgeable enough to not require any help, so I felt the need to move on and find a community that was more my speed.

      But that's the other point I was trying to make, about your statement about "debug it yourself, noob." Seriously, I have never gotten that anywhere. In fact, /. is the only place I've seen that meme propagated. No matter where I've gone, whether its been the KDE forums or #archlinux or wherever, I have never once been treated with anything other than generosity, respect, and the spirit of service. Which is why I take exception when I see this meme of "all other Linux communities are full of assholes," because in my experience it's the furthest thing from the truth.

      Ubuntu's got an amazing community of really awesome, devoted, generous people around it, and that's what makes it great. But it's not the only one. Not by a country mile. We are so blessed in the world of free software to have dozens and dozens of communities, large and small, with every bit as much passion and devotion.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    97. Re:Proper link by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      But it won't stay that way very long if it's not getting out to a wider audience. That's the trap that a lot of otherwise good software (free and not) falls into; if it's being used by the same little insular group of people, it stagnates.

      I've learned in five years of professional Linux sales and support that nothing sells itself.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    98. Re:Proper link by segedunum · · Score: 1
      Oh wow. That's such a major change.

      Beyond that, Wikipedia and a solitary Economist article are not exactly causes for much cheer or evidence that usage has increased to any significant degree.

      So, I would say the Linux community has plenty to thank Canonical for.

      A less than one percent usage increase that no one can verify and where Mac OS X has probably increased at it and Windows's expense? Wow.

    99. Re:Proper link by mldi · · Score: 1

      Oh wow. That's such a major change. Beyond that, Wikipedia and a solitary Economist article are not exactly causes for much cheer or evidence that usage has increased to any significant degree.

      So, I would say the Linux community has plenty to thank Canonical for.

      A less than one percent usage increase that no one can verify and where Mac OS X has probably increased at it and Windows's expense? Wow.

      When the increase is 60-something percent, yes, I'd say that's significant. That's like increasing your investment of $10,000 to $16,000. Then your attitude is like turning down that $16,000 because it isn't close to Gates' $billions. What, you think this shit happens overnight?

      In other words: you're batshit crazy, and honestly, you're really grasping at straws to cover your ignorant ass here.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  2. Ubuntu is a distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Ubuntu is not Linux - it is a distro BASED on Linux.

    1. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd say that "Linux" is probably closer to "Gnome/Linux" than "GNU/Linux" for a large and growing proportion of Linux users, but that's just me.

    2. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/GNU+Network+Object+Model+Environment

    3. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Okay, Gnome is part of the GNU project, I'll admit forgetting about that when I posted that comment. Never mind.

    4. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by baka_toroi · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are getting trolled. Just thought you wanted to know that.

    5. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by Sal+Zeta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, neither "A Glass of Coke" is actually a recipient made of a sugar-flavoured drink. It's a common grammatical rule called Metonymy, and it's commonly used to exemplify the language to avoid excessive verbosity.

      The same could be said about the idea of prepending GNU to Linux, giving to the name the dubious function of being considered somewhat an homage or representation of the intentions of the author. Personally I'm not offended if my friends just call me "Sal" without citing everytime my father's and my grandfather's name like some aristocrat used to think. It would just make every conversation tiring, ad would give an idea of self-importance more annoying than anything else to my speaker.

    6. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by transwarp · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Xorg. GNU/Xorg/Linux? GNU/KDE/Xorg/Linux? I think that catches pretty much everything outside of /opt. It's kind of unwieldy to say, though.
      (Does that also imply we should say KDE/Xorg/FreeBSD or GNU/Xorg/FreeBSD, etc.? Even better, what about people running GNOME on Mac OS or KDE on Windows? :) )

    7. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Gnome/Xorg/Debian/GNU/kFreeBSD :)

    8. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be GNU/Linux anyway? Why not Linux/GNU?

      Without Linux, GNU would be worthless so it's less important then linux. Hence people call it Linux.

    9. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by u17 · · Score: 1

      Take out Linux or take out GNU -- what you're left with is not an operating system any more. Take out anything else, then what's left still defines an operating system. That's why it's most efficient to call it GNU/Linux, but, of course, you are free to call it whatever you want, as long as you're not being misleading. I don't think anyone has an objection to calling a system KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux, if you have the stamina to type it then go ahead!

      The difference between using two-part names and multi-part names is that every operating system needs to have a basic userland and a kernel, but all the other programs are purely optional. If a system doesn't have GNU, it will have something else in its place. Your home router will probably not be running GNU/Linux, but Busybox/Linux instead. Your phone will be running Android/Linux. The key point is that these are incompatible, different operating systems, and you will likely have problems if you want to run a program with particular system dependencies on all of these. Because this is free software, there are many possibilities of such pairs, such as FreeBSD/kFreeBSD, GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/kSolaris, etc.

      When you say "I run Linux", strictly speaking, you refer to all possible operating systems that run on the Linux kernel. Since you need a userland to make a full operating system, such a description is incomplete. And when someone asks you what system you're running, they're not asking about just the kernel, they want to know the whole thing. So *at minimum* you should say what kernel and userland it has. If you say "I run Linux" to mean "I run GNU with Linux", then, strictly speaking, you are being misleading, because Linux does not necessarily imply GNU, same as GNU does not imply Linux.

      So, you see, it's not just about giving credit, it's also because Linux is not an operating system, and it's because us geeks want to communicate precisely.

    10. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by u17 · · Score: 1

      FYI:

      Firstly, GNU runs on other kernels than just Linux (FreeBSD and Solaris, among others). Doesn't that make Linux less important? Seriously, both parts are needed to make a full operating system, you can't have a bare kernel or userland.

      Secondly, if you look at the "host triple" used to fully describe an operating system for the purpose of compiling C programs, you will notice that it's actually given in that order: arch-kernel-system, e.g. x86_64-linux-gnu, but that's not because of importance, it's because you take a "top-down" or "bottom-up" view. As far as software goes, the kernel is always at the bottom, and on top of it there is the core userland. GNU/Linux is just looking from the top down, because as a user, you normally interact directly with the userland part, not the kernel part.

    11. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first. The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and prior to Linux, it actually started the whole activity.

      However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a lot better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and make it seem that the whole system is Linux.

    12. Re:Ubuntu is a distro by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah yeah yeah. It is just that Linux, even together with GNU, is totaly fucking useless. You'd also need X.org and KDE/Enlightenment/XFCE or whatever and a shitload of other userland tools.

      Given that KDE has a larger codebase than the entire GNU collection I would STFU if I were you and just go with "Linux" because when one says that everyone know what's up.

      Don't get me wrong: the FSF and GNU is great, but not greater than the Linux kernel. Ever heard of Busybox? Gnu Core is totaly replaceable today with something else, so demanding GNU/ to be in the titel is fucking rude and totaly respectless of other projects. Call it the corruption fase of the free software revolution; *ME ME ME ME ME ME ME*

      --
      Here be signatures
  3. Shuttleworth's Post by fandingo · · Score: 4, Informative

    We could link to Mark's actual blog post http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/517 instead of linking to some crappy IT World "article."

    1. Re:Shuttleworth's Post by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      But then who would pay the /. editors for the link?

  4. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Ubuntu also has more users than those other distros combined?

  5. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I can't follow the link here but do you mean that there are more bugs reports in ubuntu than other distros? I would argue that the bug database is the most important feature of the ubuntu distro. I have raised bugs there and seen them propagated to the originating projects.

  6. Kernel code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather the window managers worked.

    1. Re:Kernel code? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do, so that's one less thing you need to worry about.

  7. Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by mangu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    From my experience, the distro that gives less back to the community is Suse.

    I have Suse systems at work and there's always some catch, it never works seamlessly unless you go to a full (paid) Suse solution.

    Ubuntu, OTOH, is nearly transparent, you never feel like you are being obstructed by it. In the worst case, if everything else fails all you need to do is to fall back on some Debian solution that will almost always work in Ubuntu.

    1. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by Jorl17 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have Ubuntu installed on 8 machines and agree. It solves all my problems and...whenever I mess it up, which I sometimes do, the huge community or the ease of use helps me repair it. I once even deleted the entire MBR + parts of the partition table and then managed to restore it before I rebooted.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    2. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Odd. Myself and a couple of my colleagues recently got laptops preinstalled with SLED at work. The experience was generally less positive than with other (free) distros. The SLED repos are only installed after you register with Novell, and trying to get any sort of multimedia setup going on it was a nightmare. OTOH we have openSUSE on several desktop machines, works like a charm.

      I guess the only advantage of SLED would be that it plays nicer with Microsoft solutions, but we don't use those too much at work.

    3. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by nxtw · · Score: 2, Informative

      From my experience, the distro that gives less back to the community is Suse.

      Novell is one of the biggest corporate contributors (of actual code) to open-soruce projects like GNOME and the Linux kernel. They are behind probably only behind Red Hat in total contributions.

    4. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have Ubuntu installed on 8 machines and agree. It solves all my problems and...whenever I mess it up, which I sometimes do, the huge community or the ease of use helps me repair it. I once even deleted the entire MBR + parts of the partition table and then managed to restore it before I rebooted.

      Whereas with Windows, you would never have overwritten your MBR and partition table in the first place.

    5. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      That is utterly untrue.

      And you have no knowledge of the circumstances of his incident.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    6. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to the MS-Novell deal that introduced a MS tax on it that was not in the spirit of the GPL, among other things.

    7. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      They are also the second-largest code contributor to Open Office, after Sun, who wrote StarOffice and then open-sourced it.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    8. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      SUN DID NOT WRITE STAR OFFICE!

      Sun BOUGHT Star Division. Star Division wrote Star Office.

      Sun came in after the little company from Germany spent 10+ years building the product and trying to be "out there" competing against Goliath.

      Sun just came along later and threw money around.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Suse is for business, Ubuntu is for Linux by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  8. Mark should answer the following question: by bogaboga · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it his opinion that the [default] desktop environment that Ubuntu provides is better for the Linux desktop ecosystem than all other environments at the moment?

    Having tried the few options available, I hereby submit that there is an environment that in my opinion, is better for desktop Linux in functionality and license as compared to the default. I leave names out on purpose.

    1. Re:Mark should answer the following question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ohhh i get it, gnome definitely does suck.

    2. Re:Mark should answer the following question: by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      LXDE, the Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment.

      Comes with http://lubuntu.net/

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  9. Crowd sourcing by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ubuntu has encouraged me to submit bugs and even maintain a ppa for packages I couldn't find on ubuntu. Ubuntu has encouraged me to contribute because the community is active and friendly. Redhat never did that for me.

    1. Re:Crowd sourcing by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Troubleshooting guide for when packages 'aren't working right'

      1. Compile latest official stable sources from the people that write the code.

      If this solves your problem, then notify the packager and try to get him to build a new package, or build a new package yourself and sent it to the package maintainer for your distro for extra points.

      2. If you you still have problems, get the latest svn/git version and do another build with dwarf debug information present. If it's a segfault or something similar, examine the stack trace and spend some time looking at that portion of code to see how/what/where went wrong. If unable to find the problem or fix it yourself. Go directly upstream, not to your distro, but to the people that write the software, provide symptoms, stack trace and any other relevant info.

      For once off fixes if you do change code, send it in diff form to the coders of the project.

      Redhat never did that for you because even though they maintain their own bug tracker etc, you are likely better dealing with the people who made the software (ok, so if you have a problem with anaconda bitch to redhat then, etc)

    2. Re:Crowd sourcing by arose · · Score: 1

      While I like a lot of things about Ubuntu, I have to disagree on the bugs. I don't bother with distro bug reports any more, clueless triagers who close a bug after requesting irrelevant information or requests to re-run over and over again hurt more than they help. How about looking into the fucking problem? But hey, it keeps the open bug count down, right?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:Crowd sourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if you're ready to go to the next level consider taking those PPA packages and submitting them to Debian and Ubuntu proper so we can Do It Right(tm) for future generations.

  10. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thank you Mark for all your great work. We all have our short comings and people will never miss an opportunity to point them out.

  11. If you wanted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the GPL to inflict moral responsibility and karmic debt upon the user to require them to contribute tithes to the holy priests of "free" (which is to say highly encumbered) software, then ya should have written that into the license.

    I'm going to have to go with boo-effing-hoo on this one.

    G.

    1. Re:If you wanted... by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.

      If you don't wish to then don't use it.

      Gosh, that seems to have blown your whole argument out of the water?

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    2. Re:If you wanted... by angus77 · · Score: 1

      You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.

      If you don't wish to then don't use it.

      Gosh, that seems to have blown your whole argument out of the water?

      No, actually, he said (twice in fact!) that Ubuntu encouraged him to contribute. Not forced or guilted.

      As in: the Ubuntu community made him want to contribute to that community, resulting in---more contributions from the community!!! That's his argument, which is pretty clear if you read rather than skim.

    3. Re:If you wanted... by piratePenguin · · Score: 0

      Click parent on the above post . . .

    4. Re:If you wanted... by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      You only have to contribute back if you use someone's code, modify it, and distribute it.

      Right, but if you don't modify it, just use and distribute? Isn't that what ubuntu is doing? So what's the criticism about in the original article?

    5. Re:If you wanted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to contribute back when you modify and distribute GPL code. You just need to provide the source. It could be in the form of a patch and a link to the original code base. Or it could be the whole source. But there's nothing stating that you have to get ahold of the maintainers and send them your modified code.

  12. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Further, it probably has the least number of technical users because it's probably the most popular "plug-and-play" (or close to it) distro there is. Thus, there may be fewer people who can trouble-shoot their own problems.

  13. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    heh I applied for a membership on the DSL fourms 4 years ago just to post a question, and have still not been approved I spent nearly an hour today on slackware trying to see what options I had with a no cd no usb boot system, finally on some 3rd party blog I found a 5 page walk though that read like Russian stereo instructions so yea they may seem to have more problems, but its honestly hard to get any other distro's to even setup a localized place to ask questions, I love it on my home machines, hm how do I do that, Oh I know... google XYZ on ubuntu and there is a half dozen threads all pointing me in the right direction and that is a good thing, no matter how much the hardcore nurds want to spin it

  14. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    That would be untrue. Do we look at overall problems or just those involved in a Linux distro. Who would fall as worst in this category then?

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  15. Critics are MORONS by airfoobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of Ubuntu's critics say what they say because they think they are "too good" for it since it comes with training wheels on. Ubuntu, being a distro, has no obligation to write source code -- that is done by thousands of programmers elsewhere, and they are doing a damn fine job. A distro is meant to package the work of those programmers in a way that people can use it without needing a CS degree, and Ubuntu is getting that right imo.

    So, the critics need to stfu and stick with their obscure distros.

    This is the "cool people" phenomenon, like we see in music. These people will go round telling everyone how much they like X niche band as long as nobody knows about it, but if/when that band becomes popular, they'll start saying "Oh, I don't like that any more!". Same here, except with niche software.

    1. Re:Critics are MORONS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I love it on the desktop and use it on all my desktops, laptops and even HTPC, but ubuntu server needs some work. The fact that it comes with a splash screen boot by default is a clear indicator that Canonical does not spend enough time thinking about the server version.

    2. Re:Critics are MORONS by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Ubuntu server isn't trying to necessarily capture the marketshare of "serious" servers because those are already well-entrenched with contracts but rather competing with offerings like Windows Home Server.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Critics are MORONS by baka_toroi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could you tell me what "training wheels" means in this context? Having a streamlined distro? Fixing bugs? I know you haven't said that, but it sounds so utterly retarded that I'm having a hard time just trying to understand the concept.

    4. Re:Critics are MORONS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they could. I would love to have support contracts on something less out of date then RHEL and I swore off SuSe long ago.

      If they would just put out a windows AMD64 bit kvm driver, I would buy a half a dozen support contracts that day. Instead I am stuck with RHEL5 running a kernel older than dirt.

    5. Re:Critics are MORONS by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My guess is that "training wheels" means using a GUI and a mouse click to do configuration, instead of vi and editing the config file directly, then sending a SIGHUP signal to the process directly.

      Personally, I lean toward the manual editing (using nano/pico, not vi) but I mainly use Linux on servers with no GUI. For individual use, it would seem a GUI would make more sense, assuming your goal is to make it easier for more people to actually use the software.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Critics are MORONS by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      A lot of Ubuntu's critics say what they say because they think they are "too good" for it since it comes with training wheels on.

      I don't hate it because it has training wheels. I hate it because it has some of the worst hardware support I've seen out of any Linux distro that I've tried. I've seen way too many people try Ubuntu, have some problem with poorly supported hardware (or the installer entirely refusing to run), and go 'wow, Linux sucks.' and give up. That is why I always recommend Mandriva. I have yet to find any hardware it won't run on. Even the weird Dell branded broadcom wifi chips usually work without any extra effort. The last time I tried one of those on Ubuntu it took _days_ to get it functioning. Trying different drivers, trying ndiswrapper, trying compiling ndiswrapper from source, wiping the hard disk and trying again...

      Hell, I can get an Arch system up and running on my laptop in less time than it usually takes me to do (and fix) a fresh Ubuntu install. Actually, if I was doing the install for someone else, right now I would probably pick Arch. It's too rough for non-technical users to get installed, but once it's set up it is by far the cleanest, simplest, and most stable distro I've ever had the pleasure of using. After over 6 years using Linux, Arch is the distro that finally got me to entirely erase my Windows partition.

    7. Re:Critics are MORONS by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it is "trying to capture marketshare" or not. Some design decisions are just boneheaded for the use case in question. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're trying to take over the world.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Critics are MORONS by nxtw · · Score: 1

      If they would just put out a windows AMD64 bit kvm driver, I would buy a half a dozen support contracts that day. Instead I am stuck with RHEL5 running a kernel older than dirt.

      RHEL5 kernel is hardly old. It has thousands of patches.

    9. Re:Critics are MORONS by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, the critics need to stfu and stick with their obscure distros.

      Red Hat are the main critics as far as I know, and they're not obscure or trying to look "cool". Their criticism is that they pay a lot of money to develop Linux's core software while Canonical doesn't pay nearly so much, which is true.

      On the other hand you're right that Canonical have no obligation to do so, and you can make the case that Canonical are much less profitable and don't have the sorts of clients which need to kind of support provided by having programmers which work on Linuxes core software.

      It's a gray area and both sides have a point. Personally I hope that Canonical becomes more successful and starts to find it useful to their business to work on Linux to a larger extent, so that no-one has to try and guilt them into doing so (which won't work if it doesn't make business sense).
      I also hope Red Hat take a page from Canonical's book and make a friendlier/cleaner distribution for non-enterprise installations. (Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:Critics are MORONS by nxtw · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Ubuntu server isn't trying to necessarily capture the marketshare of "serious" servers because those are already well-entrenched with contracts but rather competing with offerings like Windows Home Server.

      Nuh uh. Ubuntu Server is certainly marketed towards enterprises, and not just very small ones. Canonical advertises its support for virtualization, cloud computing, and integration with enterprise authentication systems.
      Let's look at the Ubuntu Server web page:

      • "Ubuntu Server mixes effortlessly with Ubuntu, Windows or Mac OS environments. All clients can share authentication, swap files and access services, while Open LDAP, Likewise-Open and PAM authentication come as standard."

        Do home users care about LDAP or PAM?

      • Virtualise your servers with Ubuntu Server and KVM. Use a secure, lean version of Ubuntu as a guest operating system for your application and create virtual machine images in minutes. KVM, Xen, VMWare and LXC are all supported.

        Do home users create applications using Ubuntu as a base to run on virtualized environments? Do home users runs servers with virtualization?

      • Build flexible computing environments in your own infrastructure with Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud (UEC) or deploy to Amazon EC2 using Ubuntu Server Edition images.

        Do home users create their own Enterprise Cloud or deploy applications to expensive commercial hosting systems?

    11. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started my Linux experience around 15 years ago with a Red Hat CD supplied with a PC magazine. Since then I have tried several difference distros and have been using Ubuntu as my main desktop OS at home for five years, now on 10.04.

      My only real annoyance, other than having to fight to install Nvidia drivers, is that it has become harder to get updated application versions. Open Office, VLC player and other become locked down in each Ubuntu release so that I can't take advantage of the new app versions until Unbuntu decides to let me... This is the one area where Ubuntu loses out to Windows where I am able to install any update to an applications as soon as the developer releases it and do not have to wait until MS decide I can use it.

      My search is on for a distro that doesn't have these nonsense restriction and then Ubuntu will be gone.

    12. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a Unix professional for 15 years now and know for a fact that myself and other senior Unix gurus consider Ubuntu to be a fantastic system. For myself, it solved the biggest itches with Debian, which has always been miles ahead of other distributions and commercial systems.

      Ubuntu server is also a great platform and I would not hesitate to use it for many applications in preference to other platforms.

    13. Re:Critics are MORONS by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      This is the "cool people" phenomenon, like we see in music. These people will go round telling everyone how much they like X niche band as long as nobody knows about it, but if/when that band becomes popular, they'll start saying "Oh, I don't like that any more!". Same here, except with niche software.

      There's some of that, but mostly, I think it's that people (almost always wrongly) assume that everyone else is like them. I think Canonical does a good job with Ubuntu, but Slackware suits my purposes better. I don't for a minute assume that most users would benefit from my personal choices -- Ubuntu is probably the best distro for non-technical users -- but a lot of people, like some of Canonical's critics, are unable or unwilling to see things from any point of view other than their own personal interests.

      There's also probably a certain level of frustration that many people have when they really like something that most people are indifferent to. Learning to accept that is a basic aspect of maturity that eludes some folks, apparently including the critics in question. If you care, I'll be happy to tell you all about why the 8-bit Apple II was the coolest thing ever, but if you don't care, I'm okay with keeping it to myself.

      Even paying attention to these squabbles is a waste of time. If someone has a beef with Canonical, that's pretty much between those two parties. Why should anyone else care? Canonical hasn't done anything that harms me, and the bulk of their critics haven't done anything to help me. It's like the media jumping all over that one crank of a preacher and his fifty-person church in a small town in rural Florida who was going to burn the Qu'ran. Without all the media attention, no one more than a few blocks away from that bozo would have cared.

      In any case, until Microsoft launches a Linux distro, the sky isn't falling.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    14. Re:Critics are MORONS by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the handling of proprietary drivers, like certain Wireless-cards and nVidia display drivers. They are kind of a mixed bag I think. It's not entirely obvious how to override it, but it's possible. Either you love it, or you hate it.

    15. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Debian maintainer, I have to agree with your comments. Critics can shut it. There is no requirement for anyone maintaining a distribution to contribute anything back, or for that matter write upstream code for kernel or XOrg or libc or Qt or whatever. These can happen as a simple way of making stuff work, but you are not required to fix your fix for upstream to like it.

      It's funny. I actually some feedback on Google's forums regarding their google talk application allowing voice conferencing and dialout on Linux. The app works very nicely. Heck, it even supports proper ALSA sound devices! I look at the google help forums and what do I see? Tons of people bitch about "where is the source code!" It' funny because these are the same retards that probably bitch why Ubuntu provides nVidia drivers. The know nothing about actually supporting users. They most likely do no work either, just complain that the world is not perfect to their taste.

      For Linux distro to actually be useful to everyone, it has to support running non-free software. Debian does that. Ubuntu does that. OpenSUSE does that. Red Hat does that too.

      Word to the critics: DEAL WITH IT!

    16. Re:Critics are MORONS by wisty · · Score: 1

      The thing is, Ubuntu server isn't trying to necessarily capture the marketshare of "serious" servers because those are already well-entrenched with contracts but rather competing with offerings like Windows Home Server.

      Nuh uh. Ubuntu Server is certainly marketed towards enterprises, and not just very small ones. Canonical advertises its support for virtualization, cloud computing, and integration with enterprise authentication systems.
      Let's look at the Ubuntu Server web page:

      • "Ubuntu Server mixes effortlessly with Ubuntu, Windows or Mac OS environments. All clients can share authentication, swap files and access services, while Open LDAP, Likewise-Open and PAM authentication come as standard."

        Do home users care about LDAP or PAM?

      • Virtualise your servers with Ubuntu Server and KVM. Use a secure, lean version of Ubuntu as a guest operating system for your application and create virtual machine images in minutes. KVM, Xen, VMWare and LXC are all supported.

        Do home users create applications using Ubuntu as a base to run on virtualized environments? Do home users runs servers with virtualization?

      • Build flexible computing environments in your own infrastructure with Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud (UEC) or deploy to Amazon EC2 using Ubuntu Server Edition images.

        Do home users create their own Enterprise Cloud or deploy applications to expensive commercial hosting systems?

      Some home users on slashdot, maybe.

    17. Re:Critics are MORONS by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      I know many companies that would install and buy Ubuntu server support if Oracle could run on it.

    18. Re:Critics are MORONS by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is that they focus on it to the detriment of things like proper bluetooth support. Last I checked which was recently, you couldn't log on at all to Ubuntu using a bluetooth keyboard. And from what I gather that's been broken for quite a while. It's all well and good to make things accessible, but if you don't fix things like that, then where are you?

    19. Re:Critics are MORONS by piffey · · Score: 1

      You win with best comment. All we need in the Linux community is to have people tear apart the one distribution that has actually achieved any sort of "popular" success with over 4% of desktop Internet traffic now coming from Ubuntu. That being said. I use Arch, cause it's cool to use a distro that's harder.

    20. Re:Critics are MORONS by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (...) you can make the case that Canonical are much less profitable and don't have the sorts of clients which need to kind of support provided by having programmers which work on Linuxes core software.

      I think the last bit is really important. A lot of the core kernel stuff that Red Hat does are things that aren't very relevant to the average desktop user like heavy multi-CPU/NUMA/virtualization/network/other server loads. The average *buntu user would be much better served if they e.g. funded a flash replacement or ran a laptop compatibility testing program or shaved 10 seconds off the boot process. Don't get me wrong, there's things in the core systems that would help the desktop too but I don't feel that's what is holding it back.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Critics are MORONS by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Just an fyi, only today I received updates to OOo 3.2.1.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    22. Re:Critics are MORONS by Jettamann · · Score: 1

      Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.0 (RHEL5) also installs with a splash screen by default. In fact it also installs Gnome desktop by default as part of the server.
      The ubuntu Server alternate installer disk is what you want to use for non GUI or splash screen installs.

      --
      - No Sig for you!
    23. Re:Critics are MORONS by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Oracle can run on Ubuntu... Oracle's installer likes to get in it's own way wherever it can though. Even on RH or Oracle Enterprise Linux which is RH, it's amazing difficult to install correctly and coming from the world's largest software corporation you'd think that they could scrounge up a half decent installer for their flagship product. Oracle's scripts make you have to create a lot of symlinks but rest assure, it can be done!

      Would I wanna do it for production? Meh... prolly not so I guess you're right even if technically it can.

    24. Re:Critics are MORONS by clawhammer · · Score: 1

      GUI-less administration is also a boon for remote administration. Being able to send out a command or a modified config file to an entire lab of computers rather than having to make each change on each computer is a wonderful thing. (disclaimer: I've never admin'ed an ubuntu setup, so I'm not saying this isn't possible in Ubuntu).

    25. Re:Critics are MORONS by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      (Yes I know about Fedora, but clearly Ubuntu has a nicer mix in many ways.)

      For the most part, all ubuntu has going for it is better marketing, better brand name in end user circles, and including proprietary codecs by default.

      That and the packages are six months to a year behind fedora, which tends to be why most people consider fedora users the beta testers for everyone.

    26. Re:Critics are MORONS by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Red Hat does that too.

      Not really, with fedora even if it's open source if there are known patent problems with a piece of software they still won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

    27. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have over 6 years experience of using Linux you are not qualified to say what a user who has never seen Linux before should use.

    28. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the "cool people" phenomenon, like we see in music. These people will go round telling everyone how much they like X niche band as long as nobody knows about it, but if/when that band becomes popular, they'll start saying "Oh, I don't like that any more!". Same here, except with niche software.

      Slackware is popular. I like Slackware the most because it's very similar to how Linux was when I started using it in 1997 -- simple, lightweight and fun!

      Ubuntu is pretty much the exact opposite now. I have to read some non-existent or poorly written documentation hidden behind a dozen HTML pages just to know which configuration files do what.

      If Slackware was popular, I'd still use it. Sadly that will never be the case because most people are stupid.

    29. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Slackware was popular, I'd still use it. Sadly that will never be the case because most people are stupid.

      Alas, It seems I am included in the majority of people who are stupid, or at least those don't reread their comments enough. :-p

      What I meant to say was that if Slackware was as popular as Ubuntu, I'd still use it.

    30. Re:Critics are MORONS by the_womble · · Score: 1

      As I said in another comment, Ubuntu's GUI configuration tools are not particularly good (apart from software installation - and you can get Synaptic with other Debian based distros).

    31. Re:Critics are MORONS by LingNoi · · Score: 0

      Can you copy CDs again yet? Brasero has been broken in LTS (and apparently Meerkat) since it launched.

      I've been a long long time user of Ubuntu but I get more and more angry at these new releases where things are left broken simply to meet release deadlines. Even with these issues I still use it however but more because I'm lazy to switch to something new and have to learn a new bunch of problems.

      Here's some things you probably don't realise about Ubuntu:

      - Filing bugs in launchpad is a complete waste of time as they never get fixed or a response unless it is UI related. What ubuntu simply does is wait until upstream have fixed an issue then upgrade to that version. It's the reason they want to push their bugs upstream and have developed launchpad to do just that; to absolve themselves from all responsibility.

      - Ubuntu takes most of their packages from Debian. They don't spend much effort on actually packaging software. You said they do a damn fine job. NO THEY DON'T. Debian does. In fact most of the issues I've experienced are when Ubuntu decides to change a package but those are rare.

      So basically the situation we have is Ubuntu is maintained by a small team of paid staff and hundreds of volunteers, all bugs get forwarded upstream, all packages taken from Debian apart from when they decided to change a package in which case they have their patches.

      So out of this what exactly it is that Canonical gives back? Well there are translations, bug reports, the launchpad tracker (the site software, not the website; which doesn't work standalone, the whole thing is setup to only develop for their site), UI improvements (which they've been criticised for not merging upstream), bazaar and probably some other things.

      I personally don't care if Canonical contributes anything back upstream however credit where it's due they don't seem to be doing much compared to other companies in the linux distro arena. The problem however is when they say they do; or people like you credit them for things they don't do such as providing good packaged software.

    32. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arch comes with nothing by default. All the arch users that file bugs on my OSS project are because they simply don't have the damn software installed or misconfigured something. I wish you ArchTards would just fuck off and die for all the time you make me waste on your "bug reports". The fact that you recommend Arch over something like Ubuntu for new users just makes you sound retarded.

    33. Re:Critics are MORONS by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      If you have over 6 years experience of using Linux you are not qualified to say what a user who has never seen Linux before should use.

      One would think, that such a person would respond with "The one I set up for you" because lets face it, if someone else sets linux up for a noob, makes sure everything works right and everything they wish to do is easy for them, you will have little to no issues. (only issue I've had was one set of people destroying hardware, hardly linux's fault)

    34. Re:Critics are MORONS by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I have been considering Arch, but I am put off by the lack of package signing. Yes, I know that nothing has gone wrong with this yet, but leaving a hole like that seems to be asking for trouble.

      You are quite right. My recent fresh install of Mint XFCE (an Ubuntu derivative) had several problems, mostly from upstream.

      One problem I have with Mandriva is that XFCE is not very well setup.

      Other distros that interest me have either repos that are missing a lot of stuff or have small communities.

      Unity Linux look interesting, but is not there yet AFAIK.

    35. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you mean the XX

    36. Re:Critics are MORONS by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Having a GUI changes nothing when it comes to remote administration. The GUI is just an interface to modify the text files in /etc, they don't create new file types, so it doesn't matter whether you change the files manually and SIGHUP the process, or the GUI does it.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    37. Re:Critics are MORONS by jpate · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I was doing the install for someone else, right now I would probably pick Arch. It's too rough for non-technical users to get installed, but once it's set up it is by far the cleanest, simplest, and most stable distro I've ever had the pleasure of using.

      I use Arch too, and love it, but it is a terrible system for a newbie. Want to install new software? Better make sure your system is up-to-date with pacman -Syu because the new software might have been compiled against a newer version of some random library. What does a newbie do when they suddenly have ten .pacnew files from the update? And this isn't even taking into account the problems that can arise from staying very close to upstream.

      Arch is not "install once and forget." You have to maintain it continuously, even though, once you know what you're doing, it's pretty simple to do so.

    38. Re:Critics are MORONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Hat are the main critics as far as I know, and they're not obscure or trying to look "cool". Their criticism is that they pay a lot of money to develop Linux's core software while Canonical doesn't pay nearly so much, which is true.

      If RedHat doesn't like it, they shouldn't license the code they write as GPL.

    39. Re:Critics are MORONS by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      True, but they also don't stop you from doing what practically everyone does immediately after an install...add the rpmfusion repo. IIRC there's even a sticky thread on how to do so on the offical Fedora forums.

    40. Re:Critics are MORONS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yet, it still does not even support powertop. 2.6.18 is old as hell.

    41. Re:Critics are MORONS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You deselect gnome desktop as part of install, or have a kickstart file that does this.

    42. Re:Critics are MORONS by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I also use Oracle on Ubuntu since a long time ago (I remember copying the files from a Red Hat installation.)

      But seriously, no company will use, less pay for it.

    43. Re:Critics are MORONS by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Can you copy CDs again yet? Brasero has been broken in LTS (and apparently Meerkat) [launchpad.net] since it launched.

      What are you? A Windows user?

      You sound like some Lemming ranting about Nero.

      Actually, I could use Nero if I wanted to (so could you).

      There's also K3B that seems to be popular among a lot of us that don't restrict ourselves to the "chosen" apps.

      Use better apps. Have fewer problems.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    44. Re:Critics are MORONS by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Brasero comes DEFAULT INSTALLED IN UBUNTU. It's basic functionality that's broken in the DEFAULT INSTALL.

      but don't let that stop you from throw insults simply for pointing out errors in your favourite distro.

  16. Idiot by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    you, sir, are and

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I find that overly inclusive.

  17. I love ubuntu except... by JustNiz · · Score: 0

    I love Ubuntu, and more with every release except... What the hell is the deal with moving the window buttons to the left?

    Thank goodness its not hard to move them back otherwise Ubuntu would have made itself "not an option" for me.

    1. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't get this move either. Sure a line of code or theme change can move them back to the right easily but I wonder who thought it would be a good default in the first place. I love the current release though the Windows installer worked great and everything worked on my laptop after the install without my help. I only had Win XP on it previously.

    2. Re:I love ubuntu except... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      They want to put other stuff on the right side. I just wish we could kill the whole title bar idea. It serves no purpose other than to waste space. Just put the buttons right on the same bar that says File Edit View in 90% of apps.

    3. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Macs for you either then.

      Windows 3.1 had them on both sides.

    4. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On my laptop (and _only_ on my laptop) having the gadgets on the left actually works well with the default top menu. Trackpads just aren't mice. Grouping these function in the same area helps with that.

      This is probably where the idea for the change came from. I completely agree that pushing it on desktop users comes off as bizarre and capricious. It's particularly annoying for people who prefer a simplified 'win95' single bottom toolbar, so they can toss the mouse into the upper right corner to close windows. It's like finding your shoes have been tied together. They should have been more careful about introducing a change like that.

    5. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be ok except the title bar is handled by the window manager and the menu bar by gtk, qt or whatnot.

    6. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's certainly a lot of window managers that do one of:

      • look like Motif
      • look like some version of Windows (note that Motif and the first few iterations of Windows had considerable idea-sharing, with MS as one of the big players in Motif)
      • look like a bastardized version of Windows, with just enough changed to put a big ugly foot everywhere (not that I'd be naming any names that start with a G out of a personal grudge...)

      But there's also others that don't hew to the Motif,etc. form; for example, I know sawmill/sawfish (while usually used as a motif-alike) does have a passable BeOS impression, and there's a good handful of tiling and/or keyboard-oriented window managers that waste little or no space on titlebars and borders. Of course, they don't invade the app's space to drop window management controls on the menubar as you suggest -- not least because there's no consistent way to do that without forcing exclusive use of one desktop environment -- but any decent app provides a simple way to exit gracefully anyhow, so it's not much of an issue. Maybe you should actually look for a window manager that helps you manage windows the way you want to instead of bitching that everyone else just wants things "like they were in" whatever previous environment they used.

      TL;DR: instead of bitching about defaults (which are always made for idiots), STFU and download one of the dozens of wms made for real users.

    7. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... kill the whole title bar idea. It serves no purpose other than to waste space. Just put the buttons right on the same bar that says File Edit View in 90% of apps.

      So how will it be possible to drag a window that is too narrow to have blank space at the right side of the menubar? Or what about when someone wants to drag a window to the right, partially outside the edge of the screen?

      Honestly, I'm glad Open Source is experimenting with user interfaces (Compiz on my FreeBSD desktop is sweet). But I sure am glad that shitty ideas get rejected from mainstream desktop environments (most of the time).

    8. Re:I love ubuntu except... by maugle · · Score: 1

      It's in preparation for a bunch of status/indicator things on the right-hand side of the title bar. Their objective is to use those to replace the space-wasting status bar in applications (search Google for "windicators" for more information). That's an idea I can get behind, since vertical screen space is at a premium on laptops, and right now Firefox is wasting about 25-30 perfectly good pixels on a status bar that just displays the word "Done" on the bottom-left and shows the NoScript icon on the bottom-right.

    9. Re:I love ubuntu except... by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      So how will it be possible to drag a window that is too narrow to have blank space at the right side of the menubar? Or what about when someone wants to drag a window to the right, partially outside the edge of the screen?

      alt+click+drag

    10. Re:I love ubuntu except... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That crap was the straw that pushed me to FC13. I could deal with the bugs and technical problems (pulseaudio, I'm looking at you) because, hell, they happen. I managed to workaround most of the outdated software issues another poster mentioned above because, as misguided as the policy may be, I could see where they were coming from. But when they start dicking around with UI placement for no good reason whatsoever to be more like Apple, despite the fact that most users, power- and otherwise, are used to the old traditional right side alignment... AFAIC, that's not a mistake, it's an indication of a way of thinking that I expect to get worse with each subsequent release.

    11. Re:I love ubuntu except... by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      Run this in terminal to get the old layout.

      gconftool-2 --type string --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout "menu:minimize,maximize,close"

      You can also use gconf-editor.
      Sadly some idiot at GNOME decided that the "interface" tab in Appearance properties was redundant and removed it, so there's no simple way to do it from the GUI.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  18. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by c0d3g33k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been paying attention for a long time. I've done the distro hopping dance for years, and I've been advocating Linux all the while. In 15 years of Linux use, for me personally, Ubuntu comes second only to OpenSUSE as far as getting out of my way and letting me get my work done. Ubuntu is the clear favorite among family and friends whom I have foisted Linux upon over the years. I've gotten far fewer "tech guy support" calls than any other distro, spent less time dealing with computer issues over the phone and I have definitely gotten fewer complaints. Therefore, I *am* inclined to believe the stats. They are doing something right, as much as it pains some to admit.

  19. A solid distro by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ubuntu is without a doubt the best distro for most users. Yeah, I know I could have more customization with Debian, yeah, I know I could be faster if I ran Gentoo, yeah, I know I could be more on the bleeding edge if I used Fedora, but when it comes down to it, Ubuntu is the best distro for most people. I -like- the fact there is a forum where I can post a question and it is answered in about 15 minutes, I like the fact I can do 99.999% of the things I need to do without using the CLI, and I like the fact that I have a lot of software in the repository.

    And the best part is there isn't really any sacrifice. Is there anything that I can't do with Ubuntu that I can do with Debian? Just because I don't have to use a CLI for everything doesn't mean I can't if I want, etc.

    Yeah, so Ubuntu doesn't have the nerd "cred" that I'd be getting if I ran Gentoo, but I have a usable system that is nearly infinitely customizable without having to sacrifice usability.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would argue that Ubuntu is great for everyone who likes the default.

    2. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone else remember when debian == nerd cred and gentoo == 1337 kiddies?

    3. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hate the command line? That's just fine, but I really wonder why are you running a *nix? Ubuntu will NEVER be a better Windows than Windows. I hope it's not for the 'nerd cred' or sticking it to the man.

    4. Re:A solid distro by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      I don't "hate" using the CLI, I just prefer using a GUI for most things. CLIs are good for some things, but editing configuration files using vi is simply pointless when it should just be an option in the program. Same thing with things like disk checking and partition editing.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:A solid distro by marky_boi · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is without a doubt the best distro for most users. Yeah, I know I could have more customization with Debian, yeah, I know I could be faster if I ran Gentoo, yeah, I know I could be more on the bleeding edge if I used Fedora, but when it comes down to it, Ubuntu is the best distro for most people

      correct! so far I have converted 6 other ppl who would normally have not even considered it. to further top that off, when ppl come to my house and need to use a PC they just say "this looks different to my PC" I dont say a word and THEY USE IT ANYWAY without any coaching...... Ubuntu = usability = ubiquity(eventually) I care not for Geek cred, just wanna get the job done and Ubuntu ticks the boxes

    6. Re:A solid distro by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Is there anything that I can't do with Ubuntu that I can't do with Debian?

      Yes, ARM platforms, embedded devices, use a vanilla kernel.

      ... I have a usable system that is nearly infinitely customizable without having to sacrifice usability.

      Install Transmission on ubuntu without installing QT4 and half of KDE.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    7. Re:A solid distro by cynyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      fdisk is much much faster than a gui could ever be. Same for most of the command line.

      remove "$artist - $album - " from the front of 300 mp3s using the gui sometime... it's a simple loop in bash...


      cd /Music_Dir/
      for file in $(find . -type f -print); do name=${file##*/}
              name=${name##-*}
              mv $file "${file%/*}/${name}
      done

      I'm not sure the above is space safe, but the use of -print0 and a bit more should fix that right up.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    8. Re:A solid distro by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Ubuntu will NEVER be a better Windows than Windows.

      It already is. Linux in general has been that for awhile.

      The real main problem is 3rd party vendor support.

      Although most of that success is due to WORK DONE UPSTREAM and isn't really anything that Ubuntu can claim credit for.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      yeah, I know I could be faster if I ran Gentoo

      In your imagination mostly. The Gentoo tards who proclaim all those speed benefits pretty much universally use a long string of CFLAGS that are mostly redundant and in many cases can cause slowdowns and the software to work improperly. You're getting about as much extra speed in running Gentoo as you get a HP boost by putting a fart pipe muffler and some Type R stickers on your ricer.

    10. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anything that I can't do with Ubuntu that I can't do with Debian?

      Yes, ARM platforms, embedded devices, use a vanilla kernel.

      One can use a vanilla kernel. I currently run straight kernel.org because the Ubuntu kernels panic on my mobo+cpu combo. Something to do with SMP processor enumeration.

    11. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because I don't have to use a CLI for everything doesn't mean I can't if I want

      That's only true for basic file or process manipulation - But try modifying your Ubuntu system configuration by CLI and you end up with a unmaintainable or just plain broken system. Canonical have put so much effort into making sure you never have to touch /etc it means you can't if you wanted to.

    12. Re:A solid distro by Pentium100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, at my work we use Linux (Debian) even though users do not like command lines. However, Linux is cheaper than Windows and users do not see command lines anyway.

      At home I use Windows, but have a couple of Linux (again, Debian) VMs. I also like setting preferences in a program using GUI instead of editing Registry (Windows) or config files (Linux).

    13. Re:A solid distro by rorin · · Score: 1

      I know it was all the rage in 2004 or so to knock on Gentoo ricers, but really, haven't enough of the devs commented on slashdot that 'performance' has nothing to do with it? Maybe people are actually willing to sacrifice compile time for things like USE flags, portage, openrc, etc?

    14. Re:A solid distro by Draek · · Score: 1

      Thing is, you don't need to use a CLI for anything on Debian either, and I don't think there's a significant difference in 'bleeding edge' between Fedora and Ubuntu either.

      I don't have a problem with Ubuntu as a distro per se, but what I hate about its users is how they think every other distro is to the level of 2002-era Slackware in terms of usability, getting nothing but a blinking shell out-of-the-box and being forced to compile anything else by hand. Except not even 2002-era Slackware was *that* much of a pain, let alone modern Debian or Fedora.

      These days, pretty much all you gain or lose going either way is a bunch of default themes, and varying levels of sanity in its default settings. Well, that and Debian's ability to build your own interface by mix-n-matching available apps rather than removing unwanted ones, but if you're the type that likes "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" style solutions you can also put the full GNOME/KDE suites during or after installation as well quite easily.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    15. Re:A solid distro by cromar · · Score: 1

      GUI and CLI aren't mutually exclusive.

    16. Re:A solid distro by Animaether · · Score: 1

      +, enter, ctrl+m, alt+f, ^.*-.*-\s, alt+x, enter
      Total Commander - at your service.

      The only reason "the gui" (which one are you referring to?) is apparently more difficult than figuring out your bash script is because nobody bothered to make that gui work for the user.

      There are certainly times where a CLI, or a semi-programmable (filesystem) processor, reigns supreme - but for most cases, a GUI will do just fine or even do better. I certainly much prefer moving/resizing partitions visually than punching numbers into the CLI only to have it complain about the new partition being too large for the drive given the pre-existing partitions' sizes, or that I `can't` move a partition to a particular location because another partition is already there (duh - I know that. resize the other partition to make room for this one!). But to each their own.

    17. Re:A solid distro by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is without a doubt the best distro for most users.

      Sorry to doubt you, but I do. I have to say that Linux Mint is better, because it is completely Ubuntu compatible but provides a better, more intuitive user interface and is more usable out of the box, without a need to add much to do what most users want. Ubuntu is great for desktop and home users, and Mint is one step further.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    18. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transmission is installed by default. Where have you been?

    19. Re:A solid distro by socrplayr813 · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. I've used Debian and Fedora a good bit, and I've dabbled in others, but I keep coming back to Ubuntu. Things are just less of a hassle. I'm past the point where I want to spend my free time configuring everything. I want it to already work. I can still fiddle with things if I want to, but I'm not REQUIRED to.

      That said, I've actually started doing minimal installs of Ubuntu, taking just the core bits and adding what I want. It's every bit as fast as any other Linux I've used, plus I get access to the things Ubuntu has that aren't as easily available elsewhere.

      I can't think of a significant downside for me and I certainly can't see myself giving any other distro to a non-computer person. I've put various versions of Ubuntu on several different computers that aren't mine.

      --
      The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
    20. Re:A solid distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu has many improvements for most users, but it has one glaring flaw which puts solidly in the "worst possible user experience" category for Linux distributions. It is nearly impossible to make the system secure. They've adopted Apple's no root password bullshit, so one password is used to do anything on the system. This makes Ubuntu and MacOS the least secure (for the non-expert) general use operating systems I am aware of. I'd set my grandmother up with Windows before one of those.

    21. Re:A solid distro by cynyr · · Score: 1

      by GUI i meant one that is mouse driven. most of my GUI speed complaints are based on having "click targets", even worse if they move.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    22. Re:A solid distro by cynyr · · Score: 1

      yes, but is QT4 installed on GNOME systems on Ubuntu? That seems like a waste when i'll always be running the GTK version of transmission.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  20. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Blech, there's no worse "statistic" than counting the number of Google results for various terms.

    If you compare "bible" with "quran", you can see that there are about 10x the results for "bible". What does that indicate, are there 10x more Christians, or readers of the bible? You can also see that Malawi, Swaziland, Ghana, and Zimbabwe have the highest regional interest for "bible", so what can you conclude about that? Are those the most "Christian" nations? The US isn't even in the top 10, in fact all 10 are African nations. I see that Indonesia is ranked #8 for regional interest in "quran", can we conclude that Indonesia is the 8th most "Islamic" nation?

    If you went on only those numbers, you would conclude that followers of the bible greatly outnumber followers of the quran. The actual difference is about 2x, not 10x. You would also conclude that Pakistan, Gambia, and Somalia are the worlds largest Islamic countries, but the largest (by population) is Indonesia.

    Google "stats" are pretty useless.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  21. Oh the Irony (was Re:Idiot) by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    "you, sir, are and"

    So he's the guy who has been comparing my bits and telling me if they match all these years!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  22. Isn't Ubuntu doing enough good already? by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ubuntu is a very popular Linux distro, which I can only assume is pulling quite a bit of interest to Linux. A fraction of these new Linux users are also logically speaking developers. And these would then be potential Linux contributors.

    I have a hard time seeing how spending a lot of effort into making the most popular desktop Linux distro on the market could be a bad thing even when going as specific as Linux contributions. Developers are just a subset of users! Any successful distro is a good distro for Linux, and heck, it's not even important to be successful. That's kind of what this whole open OS is about. Play around and have fun. If you're doing well too, well, that's a nice bonus for Linux!

    And Ubuntu is among those that are doing well.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Isn't Ubuntu doing enough good already? by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I usually am not too picky on grammar, but, in this case...

      A fraction of these new Linux users are also logically speaking developers.

      ...the difference between the use of a comma and the lack of one is the difference between a break in thought to make a point, and a group of developers who speak with rational thoughts.

      It was bothering me. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

    2. Re:Isn't Ubuntu doing enough good already? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't being popular, the issue is what do you have to do to become popular. Dumb it down enough and you can be the next Windows, but the problem really becomes at what point is the extra market share too expensive to be worthwhile.

    3. Re:Isn't Ubuntu doing enough good already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fraction of these new Linux users are also logically speaking developers.

      Punctuation is your friend.

      The way that is written, the developers who are a subset of the new users apparently speak logically.

      A fraction of these new Linux users are also, logically speaking, developers.

      Written that way, it's much more apparent that developers are a subset of users, and you're basing your argument that some subset of the new users are developers on "logically speaking".

  23. Don't bite the hand that gives you free stuff by ksandom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've done a little back reading on this now to see what it's all about. And all I can say is for goodness sake, don't bite the hand that gives you free stuff. Personally, I usually choose gentoo or fedora. But I still recognise the value of Ubuntu.

    --
    Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
  24. I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am an old school user from the beginning with Slackware and such. I settled on Redhat because it felt the best to me. This was before Ubuntu came out and Debian was on the map but no competition yet for Redhat. (I'm sure that will be a matter of opinion for many though.) In spite of all the great things about Ubuntu, I'm stuck with Redhat because I simply know it too well. It is largely quite predictable in the way they do things and in their philosophies. That they are active contributors to the source and supporting software is nice but not the reason I continue using and supporting Redhat.

    I was dismissive of Ubuntu at first. One of the biggest turn-offs to me was the fact that nearly everyone refuses to say the name properly. (Damnit! The U makes the same sound each time! Ooo-boon-too! Why is it so frikkin hard?!) To me, that aspect alone makes me think idiots will use it. (I know I am WRONG as hell about that, but at some level, I tend to tie intelligence with linguistic skill) On top of that, I don't like the colors the defaults are using. Moreover, the naming convention? What plans have they after "Zippy Zebra?" And really? Are they intentionally copying famous comic books where the first letter of the first and last names have to be the same? (You know, like Peter Parker, Bruce Banner and all that?)

    But you will notice I make no TECHNICAL complaints about Ubuntu... (well, there is one... apparently the way they set up their Avahi daemon doesn't work well with my SME DNS server... turn that off and it works fine.) That is mostly because I don't have any.

    As far as the response of Shuttleworth? He's right on all counts. I completely agree with his responses. If any one distro helps make Linux a household word, it's Ubuntu. It's slick. It's polished. It seems to perform well everywhere I have seen it. And it is especially true about the source for information for the most solutions. It is the Ubuntu forums... good for me that I don't have much trouble translating from Ubuntu to Fedora. In some extremely important ways, Ubuntu is a huge contributor.

    If Linux is being taken more seriously by the various industries out there, you can thank Ubuntu for a big part of it.

    1. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by dangitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are they intentionally copying famous comic books where the first letter of the first and last names have to be the same? (You know, like Peter Parker, Bruce Banner and all that?)

      Yeah, because as we all know, comic books invented alliteration. It was a completely original idea of the comic book writers, and certainly not something that is so commonplace there's a word for it in the dictionary.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(I know I am WRONG as hell about that, but at some level, I tend to tie intelligence with linguistic skill) "

      I used Linux for years. AFAIK, I was the only one for awhile amongst my friends. I was always trying to get them to use the BSDs or Linux. I always said LIE-KNICKS.

      Anyways, I got to a /. meetup when that was cool years ago, run into a bunch of people, and am immediately shamed and corrected that it's Lynn Nucks.

      Glad to know my mispronunciations make me out to be both noob _and_ stupid to people.

      Anyways, I'll return to my hole in the base of that large tree.

    3. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      I was dismissive of Ubuntu at first. One of the biggest turn-offs to me was the fact that nearly everyone refuses to say the name properly. (Damnit! The U makes the same sound each time! Ooo-boon-too! Why is it so frikkin hard?!) To me, that aspect alone makes me think idiots will use it. (I know I am WRONG as hell about that, but at some level, I tend to tie intelligence with linguistic skill)

      To be fair, both to you and other Ubuntu users, the proper pronunciation of ooo-boon-too, can not be derived from reading the name alone. Ubuntu is not a household name, so most of us that "discover" it have to guess how to say it, and You-bun-too seems to look like the obvious choice to Americans. It is a difficult name, and not native-sounding to English speakers, who are likely the biggest linguistic group of users. The name is what it is, and the OS is relatively easy for new Linux users and wannabe MS haters.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Please, for the love of $DEITY. Red Hat is TWO WORDS.

    5. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me it sounds like oeboentoe, but maybe that's because I am not native to the english language....

      Think of oe like the sound a monkey makes in oe-oe-oe-oe...

    6. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "corrected that it's Lynn Nucks"

      It's not. It is Lee-nucks. There are very few rules about pronunciation in the English language, and that is why you end up with Lie-Knicks, Lynn Nucks, etc. But Linux is named after Linus Torvalds, who would pronounce his name "Lee-nus".

    7. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, or Tina Turner is some sort of superhero...

    8. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      Strong language accents, and more so mutually intelligible dialects, will place strong phonetic stresses in various ways such that every word ends up being mispronounced to some self-righteous xenophobe.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    9. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by Halifax+Samuels · · Score: 1

      Are they intentionally copying famous comic books where the first letter of the first and last names have to be the same? (You know, like Peter Parker, Bruce Banner and all that?)

      Yeah, like Klark Kent, Bruce Bwayne, Hal Hjordan, Barry Ballen, and Oliver O'Queen.

    10. Re:I'm a Redhat/CentOS/Fedora user by complacence · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how people could think otherwise is beyond me.

  25. Ubuntu is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible for something to be crap, shit, messed up and awesome all at the same time?

    1. Re:Ubuntu is awesome by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      According to your technique, Windows and Apple are awesome, and Ubuntu ... isn't.

    2. Re:Ubuntu is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those stats dont mean a damn thing.

      http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=ubuntu%20is%20hard%2Csuse%20is%20hard%2Cfedora%20is%20hard%2Cdebian%20is%20hard%2Cmandriva%20is%20hard&cmpt=q

      Higher user base = more searches on EVERYTHING related to that OS

    3. Re:Ubuntu is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this one twit. Ubuntu is awesome

  26. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This doesn't change the fact that WAY more people complain about ubuntu f$cking their machine than everyone else combined. For a distro that was supposed to get people "from here to there", it's not doing the job.

    This is a combination of poor targeting to your market, and poor communications of what the end user is to expect "as good as windows" (which is a lie. linux is better than windows, but it is not a drop-in replacement, and anyone who says otherwise is a troll).

    Apple doesn't market OSX as "as good as Windows". They're not stupid. The real advantages of linux are not price or as a windows replacement, and until the people who pimp ubuntu get a clue and realize that this is NOT the way to push linux, you're going to see 100x more complaints about ubuntu than about other distros.

  27. any legit crticis? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1, Troll

    Almost all of the vocal critics of Ubunutu I've seen have been trolls, FUDsters, and other worthless people. Has anyone raised serious legitimate criticism of Ubuntu?

    1. Re:any legit crticis? by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Yes. Greg Kroah-Hartman is far from a troll. The link is to the video of his presentation (shockingly badly recorded) but if you want to understand the legitimate concerns, watching it is 20-odd minutes well spent.

    2. Re:any legit crticis? by rayvd · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Best place to follow a lot of the debate is LWN. See this article for starters on some of the numbers that prompt the criticism. Canonical also has developed a reputation for maintaining large patches or groups of patches for applications rather than pushing the stuff upstream. Or they fork and create a new upstream.

      These are just some of the arguments I can recall popping up on LWN the last few months -- I'm sure you can find more.

      Of course, the usual suspects are at work here too... jealousy for sure as the technical heavy lifting of Canonical is done by Debian, Red Hat and others who employ the kernel hackers and such. Without these folks, Ubuntu wouldn't even exist...

      Anyways, not to say Ubuntu doesn't give back in their own way, but these are the meat of the technical criticisms.

  28. Ubuntu is good but... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what's up with doing things their own way, instead of the standard way? On every other apache distribution I've seen httpd.conf is the main config file, but not on Ubuntu... it's apache2.conf. I had to look that up. Ubuntu is full of things like this.

    Mind you, their way works, and Ubuntu has great support and lively community and so on... but why do they insist on being different?

    1. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by xthor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      on Ubuntu... it's apache2.conf.

      It's been quite a while since I was an admin in a Debian shop, but I'm pretty sure that's how it is in Debian. Which makes sense, since Ubuntu is based on Debian, right? I guess I'm sayin' it's not hard to say "the standard way" and mean "the way I'm used to doing things." I prefer Fedora since I use CentOS/RedHat on all my servers, but I don't know if their way is "the standard way" or if that's just how they do things.

    2. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      That's the way it is in Debian which is why Ubuntu is doing it too. The reason is because they're using the modular configs for Apache2 and are making that explicitly clear.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's a Debian peculiarity. The Debian way is quite logical and clean, and recognizes that Apache2 and Apache are separate software packages that may collide. It also supplies a nice and clean modular configuration system for Apache2 which avoids cruft, and demarcates maintainer and sysadmin configs clearly.

    4. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redhat's init methodology has always been ape-shit.

    5. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by seebs · · Score: 1

      This is silly. I've seen lots of systems pick various different conventions for naming the Apache configuration file -- or files, as some people split them up.

      There's not a standard being violated, you're just having baby duck syndrome. Not that I can blame you too much; I learned on 4.xBSD and I'm still surprised on a pretty much daily basis by Linuxes.

      --
      My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    6. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "what's up with doing things their own way, instead of the standard way? On every other apache distribution I've seen httpd.conf is the main config file, but not on Ubuntu... it's apache2.conf. "

      That's one of the things I like about Ubuntu. I'm not a programmer or admin, just a user. If I want to play with apache, I just search for files named apache*.conf.
      It's a hell of a lot more intuitive than httpd.conf. Maybe that's why they're doing it?

    7. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      I get quite confused with these occasionally. But maybe the point is that they have a vision of how things should be done, and do it. I'm not convinced it's so much insisting on being different, rather then just doing things in a way they see best. You mention having to look it up, I bump into that a lot, but the good part is that when you have to look something up you find the answer far easier with Ubuntu then with other distro's.

      I would not use ubuntu on a server, rather I'll stick to something more conservative like RHEL, CentOS or Debian. However for the desktop I feel Ubuntu is quite a bit ahead. And again, it's nothing that's easy to pinpoint, maybe even just the fact that when you have to look something up you will find the answer. I've been running Linux on the desktop (on and off) for close to 10 years, but Ubuntu is the first distro I've put on my workstation without having to remove it in a few months. I'm sure this is not only Ubuntu, rather a lot of advances have been made elsewhere too, but they are definitely doing something right too.

      A lot of people mentioned Ubuntu being a good candidate for non-technical users. I agree, nothing beats good documentation and a huge community when you are not technical or familiar with what's going on under the hood.

    8. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      why do they insist on being different

      As others have pointed out they aren't different in that instance, merely the same as Debian.

      That said I don't think your question is a valid one in a general sense, only in a specific sense when you judge each individual difference on it'sown merits to see whether it's a good one or not.

      If distros weren't different then what's the point of having more than one of them? Without variety there is no real choice.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    9. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      what's up with doing things their own way, instead of the standard way? On every other apache distribution I've seen httpd.conf is the main config file, but not on Ubuntu... it's apache2.conf. I had to look that up. Ubuntu is full of things like this.

      A friend asked me for help setting up Apache2 on a RHEL server. None of the config files were where I expected them to be, the firewall blocked port 80 by default, and changing the firewall rules was an exercise in crack-smokery. Of course, I've been a FreeBSD admin for more than a decade and RHEL administration is barely similar. That doesn't mean that either is better, just that they're different.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Ubuntu is good but... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there are other peculiarities. As of 2008, appending 3 to kernel boot parameters did not make Ubuntu boot into text console mode. Debian / Red Hat family / Suse all do so but Ubuntu simply ignores the numeric boot parameter just to be different.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  29. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Troll
    All that means is that ubuntu is mis-marketed - a serious mistake, because then all linux distros get tarred with the same brush

    Funny how distros like opensuse, in comparison, have almost no complaints. Shuttleworth talks about "bringing linux to the masses" - the stats show that the number of people ubuntu turns off from all linux distros is a serious problem. The most telling is that, if current trends continue, ubuntu will have more complaints than Windows in 2 years.

  30. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 0, Troll
    No, because it doesn't. Stop spreading lies.

    More people might "try" ubuntu, but then they dump it and go back to Windows. Or they complain to someone like me who then wipes the crapware from their machine and installs a real distro.

  31. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    I'll second that recommendation for OpenSUSE. In my experience, "it just works" on more hardware than Ubuntu, and YaST is a great admin tool.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  32. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

    My Vaio laptop has 3 OSes - Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, and a fsck'd OS X install. I regularly switch between Ubuntu and OpenSUSE - KDE 4 is still a bit wonky for me, but I've followed it and I'm hopeful. Ubuntu gives me grief with regards to my wireless, but other than that I like it, and would recommend it on the desktop.

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  33. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tkiesel · · Score: 1

    This doesn't change the fact that WAY more people complain about ubuntu f$cking their machine than everyone else combined.

    The question is, is it "WAY more people" proportional to how many people actually use the different distros? Proportions are everything. Bonds, McGwire (and a few others) may have a higher single-season home run record than Babe Ruth, but Ruth hit more home runs that season than the average team did that same season. Proportionally, Bonds and McGwire are pushovers.

  34. Complaints, not complains by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    Specifically, the complains have been that Canonical ...

    Is this usage meant to be cute, or just plain illiterate?

    The verb is complain (3rd person singular present = complains), the noun is complaint.

  35. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 1

    I'm a huge KDE fan and after getting fed up with Kubuntu I tried OpenSUSE. I really wanted to like OpenSUSE, and I did at first. I was very impressed with the LVM support in the installer and the ability to import my existing fstab settings. I have various data drives and Samba shares I like to have permanently mounted, and it was a pain to have to update these every time I do an install.

    But after several days of frustration an automated kernel update botched and left me with an unbootable system, and rather than repair the OpenSUSE install I decided to go back to Ubuntu. After the magic of the initial install I got fed up trying to make it do the simplest things. For example, it wouldn't play MP3s out of the box (ridiculous!) so I went to the OpenSUSE site and found a very lengthy and poorly formatted forum-style wiki on setting up non-free decoders. I tried several of the different options and none worked. So after hours of hunting I came across a blog walking me through adding the gstreamer back end for Phonon and all of the restricted codecs, which were in a separate Packman repo with a dubious cert. After about 8 hours and a couple reboots I was finally able to listen to MP3s.

    I also really dislike having to add all kinds of third party repos in order to install the simplest things. Yes it's flexible and free, but who do I trust? Will the packages and dependencies work together? Do these guys know what they're doing? Am I better of building from source? I don't want to have to go to some web site and search for an RPM, only to find several variations from various repos. How to I choose? And every time I opened the YaST package manager (which was frequently due to the spartan install) it would spend 2 minutes refreshing all of the packages. Installing Sun JDK 6 and updating the alternatives was a pain. Installing VirtualBox was a pain (it didn't add my user to the vboxuser group and failed with an vague error message.) Basically, it took me 3 whole days to get a system set up whereas in Ubuntu it's 3 clicks. Ubuntu even prompts you with a dialog if you try to do something but need a package that isn't installed (codecs, Samba, non-free drivers, you name it).

    There's lots of other little irritating things too. Wireless didn't work, so I had to change to the other broadcom driver, which involved blacklisting kernel modules. I never got that working 100%... after every reboot I'd have to rmmod ssb bcwl wl and then modprobe bcwl before things would work. Also, KWrite was the default text editor and Kate wasn't even installed, so I hat to install Kate and update every single text MIME type to use Kate instead of KWrite. The menus are arranged so you have to navigate 4 levels deep to find anything, and the categorization is not intuitive. I also had to play around with ALSA to configure DMix so that sound would work. And for some reason you have to explicitly tell it you want 3D support and hunt down and install a bunch of non-default packages for that.

    Other than the botched kernel update, these are the same issues I have with virtual every Linux distro. (Getting rid of noveau in favor of the proprietary Nvidia drivers on FC12 was a *bear*. No one should have to edit grub configurations and kernel module blacklists.) I've been using Linux for almost a decade, and it's still a pain to set it up. Ubuntu has its problems (pulseaudio stutters and has a wonky volume range; Ubuntu One music store is incredibly flaky) but its default configuration is much more friendly than the other distros, and the Wikis, forums, and bug tracking tools (and community) are outstanding. I much prefer KDE to Gnome, but I'd rather use the stable/clean Gnome on Ubuntu then KDE on another other distro. (I don't consider Kubuntu to be "stable".)

    So kudos for Ubuntu ... it's not perfect, but at least they make the simple things simple and have sane defaults.

  36. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Looshi · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it stand to reason that the most popular Linux distro would have the highest amount of complaints and the highest amount of compliments?

    In my completely unscientific survey, I just ran a Googlefight between "Ubuntu is awesome" and "Fedora is awesome" where Ubuntu had twice as many hits. I don't really think your comparison is valid.

  37. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by KRL · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...Thus, there may be fewer people who can trouble-shoot their own problems.

    This creates a situation where lots of people complain about poor UI and UI gets improved as a result. Put a decent piece of software in front of the crazies and the crazies will complain, but I think the software will be better for it.

  38. The Essence of the Critique by emblemparade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most people don't seem to understand the criticism that Shuttleworth is responding to.

    The open source community does not begrudge Ubuntu's success at all. The issue is that the Ubuntu project fixes a lot of bugs from "upstream" open source projects, but has so far done a poor job at submitting these patches back to the upstream projects.

    I can understand why this happens: It's very, very hard to manage a project as big as a complete operating system, and very, very time consuming to have to adhere to every single protocol for contributing patches to every single upstream project. If the point is to get things done for the end user, then it happens that the upstream packages lose here. And that's where the bitterness comes in: because the upstream packages don't get these patches, it means that other operating systems that use these projects don't get these patches, either. It thus seems as if Ubuntu is only patching for itself.

    I'm sure this isn't the intent, though. Some of the critics have gone a bit overboard in accusing the Ubuntu project of doing this on purpose. I think that's shortsighted and unhelpful, and that's what Shuttleworth is responding to here. Though, as eloquent as he is, he's not doing a good job in this post of addressing the critique.

    My own opinion is that the fault is not with Ubuntu, but with the staggering diversity and fragmentation of the open source world. It's hard enough to create a distribution that consumes all these projects, to produce back to them is monumentally hard.

    What should be done is create a more uniform way for projects to receive patches. Perhaps a central repository where these patches could be places, and project maintainers can pull these from and merge in, if they think it's appropriate.

    Fat change this will happen? Maybe, maybe not. I'm very impressed by Ubuntu's leadership in getting the open source world to think more about diverse end users. I think there's an opportunity to use this leadership to try to create a more streamlines path for "upstream" contribution. Projects would benefit from bug fixes and patches, other operating systems will benefit, and everybody will just be so happy forever.

    1. Re:The Essence of the Critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't the upstream people simply look at the ubuntu fixes once they hear that ubuntu's way of doing it is better? Isn't the ubuntu code available to them?

    2. Re:The Essence of the Critique by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      My own opinion is that the fault is not with Ubuntu, but with the staggering diversity and fragmentation of the open source world. It's hard enough to create a distribution that consumes all these projects, to produce back to them is monumentally hard.

      This is not a problem, package maintainers typically only maintain a few packages, it makes sense that they should be very familiar with how each of their upstream providers work in regards to versioning and patches.

      No single person has to worry about all of the packages, and working with 4-5 different upstream providers is very workable even if they use completely different revision control systems.

      When all else fails plain diff patches to the appropriate developer does the trick.

      It is far easier for the package maintainers to get their patches upstream than it is to constantly maintain a semi-fork.

    3. Re:The Essence of the Critique by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Why don't the upstream people simply look at the ubuntu fixes once they hear that ubuntu's way of doing it is better? Isn't the ubuntu code available to them?

      It really doesn't work that way, and typically the changes will only be minor bugfixes which would typically not justify hunting down the version ubuntu changed, seeing if any of the more recent developer versions conflict with these changes, etc.

      While there are many different ways in regards to implementation, the oss workflow works and scales very well As a primary developer you can't waste your time going through ubuntu's stuff which might not even be usable when you could be using that same time to fix more important issues, or double check peoples patches that have went through the proper channels for inclusion, and are in the right format.

    4. Re:The Essence of the Critique by emblemparade · · Score: 1

      If you think so, then what's your explanation as to why Ubuntu isn't doing a good job contributing up?

    5. Re:The Essence of the Critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not even that. We do a decent job getting patches upstream to both Debian and upstream. Bugs and patches submitted to Debian are "sort of" measured in the Ultimate Debian Database. I say sort of because not all maintainers use debtags (some fix it in Debian itself instead, because it's less work). Look at the list of all the new DMs and DDs from the past few years, you'll see a nice percentage of those coming from Ubuntu and then working on Debian. This is a good thing.

      For general "patches from people on Launchpad" we are swamped with about 1400 some bugs. Some might be good, some might be crap, we need volunteers to help us go through these. If anyone wants to help get the patch queue down, you can help with Operation Cleansweep.

      I think in general the critique isn't with "Ubuntu is hogging all these fixes", since it's all open code and we make a concerted effort to push the stuff. I don't think we do any better or worse than any other distro (and yes, contrary to popular belief, Fedora carries patches as well for things). The main critique is that Canonical isn't doing any pure upstream development, ie. working on GNOME, the kernel, Xorg, etc. directly.

    6. Re:The Essence of the Critique by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I'm really not seeing this. If someone knows that there are bug fixes Ubuntu has not submitted, why can't they go download and diff the source? You say it takes time - isn't it faster to let SVN or whatever SCM tool find the differences for you, than to hunt bugs yourself? You can decide what to to include, but now you have a clear idea of the problem location and the fix needed.

      But if they didn't do proper formatting, or go through proper channels - you don't want that fix. So why would you want Ubuntu to submit something that will get rejected? Is it better to say that some people want Ubuntu to fix their code, but to do it the way the maintainer would do it, and only fix things that need fixing, not cosmetic changes?

      So then we have the question of licensing. If the source code is under a "make changes all you want but make the changes under the same license" license, and Ubuntu is following that... why not switch to a "submit all patches back to us" license? I think I know - no one wants to be swamped by irrelevant patches. So do a "submit bug fixes back to us" license. How will that work?

      Again, if I'm the maintainer and I know Ubuntu has bug fixes, I'm going to download the code, overlay it over mine, see what they did, and then fix their formatting or style or whatever to my liking. Hopefully they will take the hint and use my patch instead of theirs next time they sync. But if I have to change anything about their diff, then I didn't want them to send it to me like that in the first place.

      This process has rules, everyone is following them. Except it seems the package maintainers want it done their way or not at all. Well then change the license, simple fix. Until then you made it this way so live with it.

      What am I missing here? It takes time? Yeah, it does take time to maintain a package. You can take random patch submissions from people, or you can take a completely functional package that Ubuntu spent a lot of time testing. Maybe you'll find they are doing things better than you are, and you can change your style to match. Or you can call the Ubuntu guy names on slashdot for not putting brackets on their own lines like everyone knows you do. Or for doing that if you're that way.

      "Fix my code, my way, and hand it to me, or I will criticise you." Those are the rules, no?

    7. Re:The Essence of the Critique by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Most people don't seem to understand the criticism that Shuttleworth is responding to.

      The open source community does not begrudge Ubuntu's success at all. The issue is that the Ubuntu project fixes a lot of bugs from "upstream" open source projects, but has so far done a poor job at submitting these patches back to the upstream projects.

      I can understand why this happens: It's very, very hard to manage a project as big as a complete operating system, and very, very time consuming to have to adhere to every single protocol for contributing patches to every single upstream project. If the point is to get things done for the end user, then it happens that the upstream packages lose here. And that's where the bitterness comes in: because the upstream packages don't get these patches, it means that other operating systems that use these projects don't get these patches, either. It thus seems as if Ubuntu is only patching for itself.

      I'm sure this isn't the intent, though. Some of the critics have gone a bit overboard in accusing the Ubuntu project of doing this on purpose. I think that's shortsighted and unhelpful, and that's what Shuttleworth is responding to here. Though, as eloquent as he is, he's not doing a good job in this post of addressing the critique.

      My own opinion is that the fault is not with Ubuntu, but with the staggering diversity and fragmentation of the open source world. It's hard enough to create a distribution that consumes all these projects, to produce back to them is monumentally hard.

      What should be done is create a more uniform way for projects to receive patches. Perhaps a central repository where these patches could be places, and project maintainers can pull these from and merge in, if they think it's appropriate.

      Fat change this will happen? Maybe, maybe not. I'm very impressed by Ubuntu's leadership in getting the open source world to think more about diverse end users. I think there's an opportunity to use this leadership to try to create a more streamlines path for "upstream" contribution. Projects would benefit from bug fixes and patches, other operating systems will benefit, and everybody will just be so happy forever.

      You really don't understand how Ubuntu works, do you?

      Ubuntu has one upstream: Debian. What Debian does with patches sent to them by Ubuntu is their problem.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    8. Re:The Essence of the Critique by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Package maintainers do not know better than the people that wrote the code, what happens when package maintainers make/do their own patches without just submitting them upstream and using it at the next release is the whole Debian OpenSSL debacle where a simple one or two liner unknowingly destroyed the functionality of the software while appearing to work.

      If someone knows that there are bug fixes Ubuntu has not submitted, why can't they go download and diff the source?

      They can, but you will get the entirety of all of the changes as one diff that do different things, and it will be comparing to an older version for which there would likely be merge conflicts that would have to be solved.

      So then we have the question of licensing. If the source code is under a "make changes all you want but make the changes under the same license" license, and Ubuntu is following that... why not switch to a "submit all patches back to us" license? I think I know - no one wants to be swamped by irrelevant patches. So do a "submit bug fixes back to us" license. How will that work?

      Licensing is more or less irrelevant in this, the problem is not the licensing, merely inefficient workflow by making the bug fixing process more convoluted and itself buggy by skipping upstream and patching older versions yourself, rather than patching latest and submitting a diff

      But if they didn't do proper formatting, or go through proper channels - you don't want that fix. So why would you want Ubuntu to submit something that will get rejected? Is it better to say that some people want Ubuntu to fix their code, but to do it the way the maintainer would do it, and only fix things that need fixing, not cosmetic changes?

      It appears you have mistaken the role of the package maintainer for coder of the actual software. it is not, it is to package the software in convenient rpm/deb packages. If they can assist the main developers in fixing things and if they are the main developers, even better, but it is not their job description, they are there to ensure things play nicely and can be easily acquired.

      "Fix my code, my way, and hand it to me, or I will criticise you." Those are the rules, no?

      More like, "if you are going to do fixes why not do it upstream with the main developers, it saves you keeping a separate branch up to date."

      And yes, keeping a separate branch over a long period is a pain in the ass, for anyone. Ubuntu package maintainers are doing themselves a disservice if they do so.

    9. Re:The Essence of the Critique by emblemparade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are wrong. The core OS packages do come from Debian, but many major packages are maintained by Ubuntu for Ubuntu. Even the kernels are Ubuntu-specific. (Though the Debian project has done the initial work in packaging them for the Debian build system, which Ubuntu uses -- and "packaging" is not a trivial task.)

      You can argue that these small changes that Ubuntu makes are small compared to the bulk of the work that the Debian project has done. In fact, that was a common critique of Ubuntu when it started.

      I think it's a separate critique from what Shuttleworth is responding to here, but it is related in the sense that the critics in both cases are underestimating both the importance and the size of the task that the Ubuntu project is taking on. They imply that Ubuntu is just adding some pretty little bells and whistles to "market" and get credit for (see the Slashdot comments here!) the real hard programming and administrative work that others have done, and is selfishly keeping this "marketing" stuff for itself to further this selfish goal.

      So, the response is twofold:

      1) The critics do not understand just how much work is involved in the "bells and whistles". Implementing a color scheme, editing and translating documentation, fixing a usability issue, adding accessibility controls, responding to newb questions in forums -- ends up taking as many man hours as optimizing an algorithm or fixing a security bug. It might not earn you as much geek credit, but it's challenging, important, and rewarding work in its own right.

      2) The critics do not understand how hard it is to follow the patching and quality assurance protocols of so many upstream packages. Doing so fully would easily double the man hours counted up in step #1. (The GNOME project has an especially difficult process.)

      In my opinion, #1 is a dying issue. Shuttleworth has done a great job at getting respect for the "non-tech" aspects of open source and the people who work on it. But #2 remains a point of contention, and it's not one that Shuttleworth has addressed quite convincingly enough yet.

    10. Re:The Essence of the Critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there's benefit to the idea that a Linux distribution is a complete snapshot of an entire FOSS universe, decoupling the OS from the apps would make a lot of sense.

    11. Re:The Essence of the Critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Launchpad, and it has modules that interact with upstream bug trackers. On Launchpad there are PPAs, Bazaar repositories, bug tracking, translation update, feature requests, blueprints, and plenty of other stuff I haven't found yet. The only problem with upstream developers is that they are too lazy to use bazaar to pull patches to their own programs, and that is hardly Canonical's fault.

    12. Re:The Essence of the Critique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ubuntu devs and users are sick of their patches or suggestions ignored upstream.
      Here is one example
      https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/388904

    13. Re:The Essence of the Critique by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      The fact they have a lot fewer developers? and that a small percentage of maintainers could be masochists that like maintaining separate forks?

      When I see "you aren't contributing back" from ubuntu I think more along the lines that lots of new development work just isn't being done by them more or less. Ubuntu really doesn't have anything special about it except it's willing to include binary blobs etc.

  39. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? You really think the average Joe that is turned off by Ubuntu wouldn't be turned off my trying to install OpenSUSE. Why are you trolling?

  40. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Cylix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You want a non-standard install on a no usb and no cdrom system and you wonder why you have issues finding help.

    At that point you are far into the realm of advance because you have to use an alternate means such as staging the contents on disk or using a pxe based install. The latter isn't terribly difficult if you haven't done it before, but the first time setup isn't for the novice.

    That is a really awful example of a problem solving situation.

    With that said it is very unlikely that you need a distribution specific solution. There are many differences between distributions, but I have had little issue navigating the various system types. The exception for myself being Gentoo which made me do a triple take when reconfiguring some very legacy host I once found hiding in a rack.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  41. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that means is that ubuntu is mis-marketed - a serious mistake, because then all linux distros get tarred with the same brush

    Funny how distros like opensuse, in comparison, have almost no complaints. Shuttleworth talks about "bringing linux to the masses" - the stats show that the number of people ubuntu turns off from all linux distros is a serious problem. The most telling is that, if current trends continue, ubuntu will have more complaints than Windows in 2 years.

    And there are people on /. still making BSOD jokes.

    Not data, just anecdote: Ubuntu is the only Linux distro I've ever considered recommending to Windows users. I'm not alone...

  42. ... not being listened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is why I left Ubuntu. I game a lot on my PC, and I couldn't stand PulseAudio. I don't give a rat's behind about slinging audio over the network, or bluetooth support. I just want the sound to come out of the speakers ASAP with low resource usage. Debian is my new distro of choice. For a time, I contemplated just going back to Winflaws, but then I had to re-install XP on another box the other day and I was reminded how MS treats it's customers like ****.

    That said, even if they made PulseAudio an option (rather than a requirement) in Ubuntu, I doubt I would go back. I generally prefer a compact system with as few unnecessary things running as possible. My debian installs use much less memory because of it.

    I guess Ubuntu and I have gone in different directions over the past 5 years.

    1. Re:... not being listened to... by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      Install Arch. That's the distro for you if you want to go 100% bare. When you install Gnome for example you get the bare minimum required. No yelp, no alacarte, no Evolution, IM client, epiphany/firefox/Chromium, nothing, just gnome and the panel and their dependencies.

      Or you can install Ubuntu from this:

      https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

      Which marginally does the same thing.

    2. Re:... not being listened to... by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

      I agree pulseaudio should not have been forced as default, they lost many many users over that.
      The bottom sound layer (alsa) is not very solid and putting another temperamental opaque layer on top was not a good idea.

      It is alot better now, works out of box and I even use one of its features regularly (moving audio stream to another output while its playing).

    3. Re:... not being listened to... by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      While Pulse Audio is the default, you can change it by issuing:

      gstreamer-properties

      From the command line and selecting your preference (for example Alsa). So I would say it's not a requirement.

  43. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Myopic · · Score: 1

    If you compare "bible" with "quran", you can see that there are about 10x the results for "bible". What does that indicate, are there 10x more Christians, or readers of the bible?

    No, obviously it indicates that the Christians chose the one and true God.

    (this is a Funny not a Flamebait)

  44. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GP post sites Google Insights, so I guess thats the best way to backup Beezlebud.

    http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=installed%20ubuntu%2C%20installed%20fedora%2C%20installed%20mandriva%2C%20installed%20debian%2C%20installed%20suse&cmpt=q

  45. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

    You can also see that Malawi, Swaziland, Ghana, and Zimbabwe have the highest regional interest for "bible", so what can you conclude about that? Are those the most "Christian" nations?

    Actually, that might be a yes.

  46. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Well stop searching for those term then.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  47. Ostrich algorithm by notandor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In the blog entry, Mark writes about "... a willingness to chase down the problems that stand between here and there." From my experience, problems are not chased down but rather the Ostrich algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_algorithm is applied.

    While running karmic (9.10), I noticed a bug with the network-manager pertaining static IP addresses and wireless connectivity, which made it unable to connect to certain configured wireless access points. Lets take a look at the network-manager released with 9.10: http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/net/network-manager , it is (0.8~a~git.20091013t193206.679d548-0ubuntu1).

    Now lets look at the updates for karmic at http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic-updates/net/ , there is not a single one (!) for network-manager. For the whole six months until the next release of 10.04, not a single update for it has been provided! They just took the git snapshot and left it in 9.10.

    Just compare it to Fedora 12 and their updates on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=172857 , karmic (9.10) was released at October 29th, and one can see the fixes and updates through Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan for F12.

    I do not care about the marketing strategies and public image of Linux distributions, but rather about exactly what Mark said, about " ... a willingness to chase down the problems that stand between here and there."

    For me, Ubuntu did not deliver that.

    1. Re:Ostrich algorithm by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      YES! I no longer submit bug reports because of this. To date I've probably submitted about 50+ reports on Ubuntu and ALL of them are either ignored until they've become irrelevant or are simply ignored. I have a couple that I submitted 2+ years ago without any response. I submitted some while the latest LTS was in development, no response.

      Canonical just keeps coming up with new ways to ignore users. See the latest "opinion" status in launchpad. Any bug marked opinion gets ignored from the devs. You no longer receive updates about a bug with it marked. Even worse, some users change bugs to this status without realising what it does.

      Even basic functionality that should be working by default gets shipped broken to meet their deadlines. Latest thing for me is the CD copying. Expect to see a lot of stuff broken to meet their 10/10/10 deadline. There is no way in hell they'll miss that deadline.

    2. Re:Ostrich algorithm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Ostrich algorithm by notandor · · Score: 1

      Only that what we are interested in here are not (solely) opinions but rather arguments and their refutation.

      You can take a look at the links to packages.ubuntu.com and koji for yourself, and the launchpad situation described by Parent cannot be easily dismissed.

      Although, somehow I think your reply should modded Funny if it is a clever pun on the "opinion" status in launchpad.

  48. Contribution of Notoriety Not Enough? by piffey · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu did contribute something: getting Linux to 5% of Internet traffic on OS Statistics. Isn't the increase in notoriety enough?

  49. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Citation please.

    Because you imagine it it doesn't make it so.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  50. re: Your sig by jelizondo · · Score: 0, Troll

    This I can definately agree with

    When you challenge the world saying your post is worded precisely as intended, does that include misspelled words?

    This I can definitely agree with

    There Fixed That For Ya!

    So now, mod me down!

    But goddamn it, consult a dictionary or using a spelling checker before challenging the world!. Particularly if you tend to misspell words (I count at least three such mistakes, without going into proper grammar and such.)

    Now get off my lawn!

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
  51. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    Move on man, you are trolling. The fanboy reference in this case proves my point.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  52. Ubuntu has done good, but... by russotto · · Score: 1

    Anyone denying that Ubuntu has significantly contributed to Linux is pretty much being an idiot. But the sentimental crap in that post ("miracle of human generosity"... please) makes me want to ditch it entirely and move to Gentoo or OpenBSD. Come on, Shuttleworth, you're not going to convince programmers of much by telling us about kids in New Zealand. And you're not going to convince the sentimental types either; you've got to talk about kids in sub-Sarahan Africa or Central America or Detroit to get them to notice.

    Getting past that part, the bit about crushing Microsoft was nice, of course. But perhaps too good to be true, considering no names were named and Microsoft always has a backup plan.

  53. Re: Your sig by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Grammar Nazi Karma strikes again...

    It only took a quick scan of your post to see that you fucked up your punctuation and misused the word "using."
    There's probably more there if I cared enough to read more closely.
    I recommend a new day job.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  54. Re: Your sig by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

    Says the person who used "There Fixed That For Ya!" in the same post. Surely, you meant "There, fixed that for you" ?

    By criticizing ONE mistake in someone's spelling, you managed to commit THREE mistakes yourself. Namely, you omit a comma, capitalize all the words for no reason, AND misspell 'you' as 'ya'.

    Keep up the good work, Mr Pot, and soon you'll be as black as Mr Kettle.

  55. How do you know it was Ubuntu? by judeancodersfront · · Score: 1

    Ubuntu just happens to be the most popular distro. If it didn't exist the majority of that 5% would be using a different distro.

    1. Re:How do you know it was Ubuntu? by piffey · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but you can say that about any percentage based statistic. If something doesn't exist, its statistic will be filled in by something else. The fact is that according to distrowatch, Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based Debian derivatives dominate the leader board. Not to mention the inclusion of Ubuntu on cheap Dell laptops for a time and the evangelizing of Ubuntu converts who're more passionate than new Christians. Maybe that's why Ubuntu Christian exists?

    2. Re:How do you know it was Ubuntu? by judeancodersfront · · Score: 1

      Another way of looking at it is the market share of Linux hasn't changed since Ubuntu first appeared.

      That 5% is inflated since it is from w3schools. At statcounter Linux has been around 1% for over 5 years. http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-200908-201008

  56. Ubuntu has saved my life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to be the neighborhood computer nerd. I just installed Ubuntu on all their machines and not have had a support call again. I like helping out other people, and in the past 5 years I've been installing Ubuntu on their machines I haven't had a call once after installation.

    I use Ubuntu on my media server and my laptop, it has made my life a lot easier and I am grateful for this distro. It's polished, easy to use and easy to maintain. Congrats Mark, you've shown us what Linux can do if prepared properly.

  57. The Linux world would be better off without Ubuntu by judeancodersfront · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It isn't a community developed distro, they accept outside help but the direction of the distro is set entirely by Shuttleworth

    Just look at what happened when he moved the buttons to the left and the community protested. Did he care? Not at all, the left side buttons are part of his plan to copy OSX.

    Shuttleworth talks about the contributions of others but doesn't use the word 'linux' once on the Ubuntu home page. He wants to make an OSX clone and then keep all that nerdy Linux stuff in the basement.

  58. Re: Your sig by Nethead · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are computer geeks, we are not English majors. You are on the wrong site.

    Now, Mr. six-digit ID, get the fuck off of my lawn.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  59. I'm about to read the article, but..... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    ... I already have an opinion on the topic. Ubuntu has clearly made a whole slew of poor design steps. The system works well over all, and the derivatives (Mint), clearly show the potential of some of the architectural choices that Ubuntu made early on. But Ubuntu itself? Brown? With crappy wanna-be mac buttons on the wrong side? With some heinous orange and piss colored icons scattered to and fro?

    Ubuntu is actually a good OS. And their upstream involvement with Debian, and the hugely varied community of (mostly excellent) remixes are a testament to the solidity and correct design decisions of the actual code.

    Maybe Shuttleworth is really a genius and was trying to foster all these remixes by branding his Linux after african language, painting it orange and brown, and implementing features that nobody wanted. In this way he was FORCING all the Ubuntu remixes to come to fruition, and in turn be truly the year of Desktop Linux (I'm looking at YOU Linux Mint Debian Edition)!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:I'm about to read the article, but..... by epine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But Ubuntu itself? Brown? With crappy wanna-be mac buttons on the wrong side? With some heinous orange and piss colored icons scattered to and fro?

      Many men choose their GFs on visual aesthetics rather than life skills, even counting "looking sexy" as a life skill (the aspects of sexy that can't be defined by a tape measure).

      I've heard all the complaints about the Ubuntu colour scheme before.

      Tell me, when you look at the Italian flag, do you see snot, blood, and semen?

      Now that you point it out, I think I'll move to Estonia. They seem to have gone to extra trouble to avoid colours based on bodily fluids. Gotta like that. Unlike the Italian white, the Estonian white is very pure.

  60. Not really. by crhylove · · Score: 2, Informative

    Linux Mint is much easier for beginners, especially the myriad of people coming from Windows.

    It's more stable, it's faster (in cases), and has better default apps.

    Though I'd personally like to see them commit to VLC rather than the alternatives, and other default apps in addition.

    The real existing problem that I see is a lack of games for Linux that really run well, but honestly, after watching the train wreck that was GTA 4 for Windows, well, I still enjoy Urban Terror AND it runs flawlessly on almost every recent Linux.

    Still, I'd like to see a fully performing Dolphin on Linux, currently it's half the speed of it's Windows build. There's not even a commonly solid N64 emu that has updates or runs really well for most distros. You have to hunt all over Jesus for a .deb.

    That being said, BSNES, arguably the best SNES emu in existence runs as well in Linux as it does in Windows. But maybe that was under wine. Fuck it I can't remember.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  61. Shuttleworth's a parasite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Shuttleworth's a parasite. Remember when the idiot tried to demand that Red Hat synchronize its kernel releases with him?

    Ubuntu takes the work of thousands of others and tries to take credit for it. Period.

    1. Re:Shuttleworth's a parasite by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

      He is spending millions of his OWN CASH developing a product that everybody can use for ABSOLUTELY FREE. Yea, must be an awful parasite this person.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
  62. Documentation by datakid23 · · Score: 1

    I've not read the article, but as a long term linux and ubuntu user, I would say their contribution to community building and documentation that is the ubuntu forums kicks all kinds of kernel arse, to be honest.

    1. The probability of you being the first or only person to have experienced this problem is approaching 0.
    2. The probability of the problem either [solved] or in the process of being solved, by nerds that speak human, is approaching 1.

    This is the Ubuntu forums. This is why you can put moderately techy people on linux and let them troubleshoot themselves.

  63. The irony of open-source... by NateTech · · Score: 1

    ... is that as soon as anyone starts using the Freedom everyone so highly touts, the community starts bitchin' that successful person needs to give them something.

    Either it's truly Free or it's not, folks.

    (Thus why most folks who need true Freedom, and have been around the block more than once, just use BSD for their products and systems, and are done with it.)

    --
    +++OK ATH
  64. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, you are wrong.

    The reason you can hear/read more people complain about X or Y thing in Ubuntu is because the Ubuntu community does not tell them "OMG you are a noob" "WTF RTF!!!" "OMG GO back to teh windowzzz newbie"

    I stopped asking questions about RedHat, around 7.2, because the community was just unhelpful. Whereas the Ubuntu community is *really* helpful...

    - you get a flamebait mod :) -

  65. I don't know what the issue is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what (the others) are complaining about. Shuttleworths mission was not to make a version of Linux that anyone could use, his goal was to make a version of Linux that anyone would WANT to use. There is a difference between 'ok, I think I can get this to work' and 'hey! that works really well!'. Before Ubuntu, NO LINUX DISTRIBUTION was up to the task of making a general-purpose well rounded Linux distribution, concentrating on the DESKTOP. RedHat had theirs for a while, then killed it, then tried to bring back a community version of what they once had (Fedora). Debian was all things to all people, but it fit in the 'ok, I think I can get it to work' category. Others are more utilitarian (I did run Slackware for about 5 years from about 1994 to about 1999.... the first kernel I recompiled was 1.2.13 ...oh and the last one I compiled was 2.6.36-rc4-git1). Ubuntu fills a great need to have a Desktop version of Linux actually trying to compete on the desktop. They do contribute to Debian (again, not as much as the Deb folks want, but they contribute none the less). I think of Ubuntu as an olive branch from the Linux community to the wider world. If Ubuntu attracts people to Linux, and some of those people are developers, or some of those people are companies trying to service the needs of some of those people, and the developers contribute to the kernel or the business contributes to the kernel (all because Ubuntu attracts more people to Linux), does that count?

  66. Upstream perspective... by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

    One thing all the whiners overlook is that while Canonical and the Ubuntu community have done diddly squat to contribute anything back to my project, my project actually gets developed primarily on Ubuntu boxes. We have a few people running other odd distros, but all our core people are on Ubuntu.

    We have a mild preference for our users to be running Ubuntu, because that makes it much easier to repeat bugs. We get a lot of weird, unrepeatable reports from Slack and Gentoo users, for example, and what do you want me to do about it? I don't have time to dick around with every distro in the world. I need a distro I can install and have my development environment up and running in short order, and Ubuntu is the best I've found so far.

    I'm a Debian guy originally, and I love Debian, but it's just too hard to develop on, because the stable version is always out of date. It's almost impossible to stay with Ubuntu LTS too, but their interim releases seem to be a lot less trouble than trying to run an un-released Debian.

    1. Re:Upstream perspective... by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I need a distro I can install and have my development environment up and running in short order, and Ubuntu is the best I've found so far.

      From a developers perspective, Fedora probably takes the cake so far as distros are concerned, you find debian hard because it's so out of date, well comparatively ubuntu is to fedora

      Granted it is only 6-12 months behind fedora, but when developing it helps to have the latest stable versions of everything.

  67. Thank you, Canonical. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have used and toyed with Linux as a desktop OS since the mid 90's, beginning with Slackware, then including distros such as Red Hat, Debian, Suse, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mepis, Gentoo, Mandrake, Sabayon, and several others. I settled on Linux Mint a few years ago, which is known as a "more complete" and better derivative of Ubuntu; Mint is Ubuntu-based but includes a number of independently developed tools and a great user interface, though it is developed by a small group of fanatics. For a change, the Mint team recently released an excellent Debian-based version, in addition to their usual Ubuntu-based releases, which has been met with a lot of excitement.

    I am already using Linux Mint Debian Edition as my main OS, but I still have a ton of respect for Ubuntu and Canonical. They have done a lot to raise awareness for Linux, and have developed a very usable OS that non-expert enthusiasts can use, as well as providing a great base for many other distros. Ubuntu is not an ideal server OS, or the be-all end-all OS that is absolutely perfect, but Canonical have done a great job with it and have worked admirably to promote free and open source software. If nothing else, they have inspired their competition to make things easier for home desktop users.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  68. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    "Windows is awesome" returns 16x more results than "Ubuntu is awesome", so that shows how reliable those results are.

    Also noteworthy is that "Fedora is awesome" returns almost the same amount of results as "being gang raped in the ass is awesome". Is there some statistical significance in those numbers?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  69. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by vjoel · · Score: 1

    This doesn't change the fact that WAY more people complain about ubuntu f$cking their machine than everyone else combined.

    Probably more people complain about the common cold than about the black death. Your point?

    --
    What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
  70. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is crazy. I've been around MIT for 9 years, and everyone there uses either Mac OSX or Ubuntu (well, one or two use Windows, but it's rare). I'd say that these are about the most technical users I can imagine, and I know I may just be speaking for myself but being a highly technical user makes me even *more* appreciative of all the garbage I no longer have to put up with.

    For god's sake, I can use *MULTIPLE MONITORS* on my laptop using the hotkeys! Out of the box! I can hear audio without compiling my own kernel! I hardly ever even edit /etc/apt/sources.list by hand anymore because of their sweet way of adding PPAs with signing and everything! I can even install mplayer from repositories and have it not be a horrible steaming pile of hoe!

    I think most people who are truly "highly technical users" are perfectly aware that Ubuntu is just a distribution with Debian as a foundation. If I need to do anything truly intense, 99% of the time my experience with Debian solves the issue (and the other 1% of the time it's because apache got modularized since I used it last). And I am absolutely certain that 99% of the time, a problem that "BWIWAF" would have been a frustrating time sink is solved automatically before I even see the issue.

    No, true highly technical users have no interest in screwing around with things under the hood that shouldn't be happening, they are interested in writing new code and solving new problems. Anything that makes that easier wins.

  71. hypocrite by MSG · · Score: 1

    Shuttleworth maintains that Red Hat produces a proprietary distribution, and whines when people complain about his company's product.

    There's a word for guys like that...

  72. Re:The Linux world would be better off without Ubu by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

    Well, if you're going to copy something, isn't it better to copy OS X than to copy Windows? After all, KDE very heavily copies the look and feel of Windows. Before anybody jumps me, I'm not dissing KDE; I like it a lot and the only reasons I recently stopped using it is because of how broken the dual-head support is, and that AWN works a lot better in GNOME (I decided to copy the Mac way). As you may have noticed, Apple continues to sell tons of computers, and it's not the hardware driving that (lots of companies make excellent high-end hardware), it's OS X that's driving the sales. After I replaced my wife's old notebook with a MacBook Pro, she found out for herself that it's true: once you go Mac, you never go back. At least not to Windows; I do now and always will prefer Linux to Mac overall.

    As for GNOME, well it goes its own way on some stuff (these are usually the parts of GNOME that suck the most) sort of copies Mac on some stuff (top panel) and Windows on some stuff, but I think overall it feels more Mac-ish than not.

    Now, if somebody wants to really push the envelope of UI design and come up with something that leapfrogs both Apple and MSFT, I certainly support that and would definitely try it. If I liked it, I'd switch. I'm very What Have You Done For Me Lately? about desktop environments. Over the years I've used FVWM 95 AfterStep, Window Maker, GNOME 1.x, KDE 3.0 - 4.4 am currently back on GNOME, and I'm pretty sure I'm leaving out at least one DE or window manager, maybe two. Oh, yeah; Enlightenment!

    However, the current state of the art of What Works Best For Me is the Mac UI. That doesn't mean the Mac itself is best for me, although I do have one at work and it's pretty darned good, but the UI design. That's why my Ubuntu desktops at both home and work look a lot like a Mac and use the AWN dock. A dock with integrated task and launcher items is really the way to go, at least for me.

  73. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by socceroos · · Score: 2, Informative

    User-installed Linux != manufacturer-installed Windows. Not what you were saying - directly - but its worth pointing out.

    I have installed Ubuntu Linux on a number of clients computers, and I've done it properly. All set up to do common tasks (DVD movies, music, flash, WINE, etc) with proper remote support. These same clients have spread the word to the point where people from all over my continent are shipping me their laptops and desktops to have it installed with Ubuntu 'properly'. Kind of overwhelming actually.

    My point is, vanilla Ubuntu needs some minor tweaks (software installed) before its completely ready for Joe Blogs, but once done - they love it.

  74. Re: Your sig by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Funny

    Surely, you meant "There, fixed that for you" ?

    What fixed that for you? I think you're missing an "I".

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  75. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by walshy007 · · Score: 1

    Likewise with myself and fedora. I've put it on elderly peoples first computers and they have loved it.

  76. Re:The Linux world would be better off without Ubu by grumbel · · Score: 1

    It isn't a community developed distro, they accept outside help but the direction of the distro is set entirely by Shuttleworth

    Which is a good thing, as the community is pretty much incapable to fix anything that would divert from the "standard" way of doing things. They want what they are used to and most of the time what they are used to is the ugly and complicated way to do things.

    Just look at what happened when he moved the buttons to the left and the community protested. Did he care?

    So you want people that are to stupid to type a single line into their terminal to call gconftool to change that stuff back to design your OS? The button order is a 100% total complete non-issue for anybody who has a little bit of a clue.

    Not at all, the left side buttons are part of his plan to copy OSX.

    Probably, but there are worse things to copy.

    Shuttleworth talks about the contributions of others but doesn't use the word 'linux' once on the Ubuntu home page.

    Linux is only a tiny part of the whole system, no need to plaster its name all around and create confusion. Don't you remember the "My Linux 6.0 is broken" posts from people who couldn't tell the difference between Linux and their Distribution? Beside, it is not like they hide it, its right there on their About page.

  77. Shuttleworth by JonJ · · Score: 1

    I don't really care what Shuttleworth has to say. A man who tries to poach developers off competing distributions has no credibility. Fuck Ubuntu, Canonical and their leeching practices. I'll stick with Red Hat and Debian, thank you very much.

    --
    -- Linux user #369862
  78. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by timbo234 · · Score: 1

    For example, it wouldn't play MP3s out of the box (ridiculous!) so I went to the OpenSUSE site and found a very lengthy and poorly formatted forum-style wiki on setting up non-free decoders. I tried several of the different options and none worked. So after hours of hunting I came across a blog walking me through adding the gstreamer back end for Phonon and all of the restricted codecs, which were in a separate Packman repo with a dubious cert. After about 8 hours and a couple reboots I was finally able to listen to MP3s.

    I don't know what wiki you're referring to but the opensuse-community one couldn't be simpler (1-click install): http://opensuse-community.org/Restricted_Formats
    This is the page linked to in the sticky post in the multimedia forum, the one people who ask about codecs in the forums are directed to and it is, or is linked from, the first 2 websites listed from a Google search for 'opensuse mp3 codec'.

    (the opensuse-community.org wiki exists basically to serve up this page, and a handful of others, that can't go in the main opensuse.org wiki because of these legal issues)

    --
    Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
  79. Ubuntu, GNU/Linux and other distributions by disi · · Score: 1

    I think Ubuntu is a good player, if it comes to contributions to the community.
    What we refer to as Linux, is made up of many tools around the Linux kernel. Here are just the informations I found on programs running on nearly every distribution
    The biggest player in contributing to Linux kernel is still RedHat. Here are the top contributers:
    Within that field, Red Hat topped that chart with 12%, followed by Intel with 8%, IBM and Novell with 6% each, and Oracle 3%.

    Whereas the GNU (ls, pwd, sort, head, gcc, bash etc.) is done by the FSF (Free Software Foundation). Here is a list of contributors: GNU

    If I put those programs together and make my own startscripts with e.g. init, systemd or whatever, I get a distribution. How close is Ubuntu to the actual version of the program in their distributions, which is necessary to contribute at all?

    Here is an interesting statistic, how close distributions are with the upstream version: oswatershed.org
    I believe the top distributions here are also the ones with the most upstream patches to get the used programs working.

  80. Re: Your sig by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

    When you are speaking about yourself in the first person, there is usually little need for the "I am", "I will", "I should" etc. It is implicit that you are talking about yourself.

    Example.

    Q. "Where are you going ?"
    A. "To the mall"

    There is absolutely no need to use the expanded "I am going to the mall". Unless you are six. How old are you by the way ?

  81. Ungrateful job by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    Running user forums, bugfixing packages, and maintaining consistency are ungrateful jobs. I think many free software people somehow expected that society will recognise their efforts once the software gets mainstream. They see Mark Shuttleworth as the typical business guy who takes credit for all their work.
    But there is a need for sustainable business models in many areas of FOSS development. If you look at the job market, most of the jobs are dead-ends for FOSS. I.e. you will use whatever free software is there but you will not get the permission to contribute back. Canonical is one of very few companies where a software developer can get a job without legal harassment by copyrights and non-disclosure "agreements".
    I'm waiting for the day, where our biggest complaint is, that Canonical is helping customers migrate from Debian to Ubuntu. But at the moment there is bigger fish to fry.

    1. Re:Ungrateful job by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      If you look at the job market, most of the jobs are dead-ends for FOSS. I.e. you will use whatever free software is there but you will not get the permission to contribute back. Canonical is one of very few companies where a software developer can get a job without legal harassment by copyrights and non-disclosure "agreements".
      I'm waiting for the day, where our biggest complaint is, that Canonical is helping customers migrate from Debian to Ubuntu. But at the moment there is bigger fish to fry.

      Canonical hires software developers?

      I mean, the complaint being aired is that Canonical contributes very little to any open source project. So, it goes to follow that, as a "software developer," your job at Canonical would be to either: 1. Develop Launchpad. 2. Repackage Debian packages.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re: Ungrateful job by janwedekind · · Score: 1

      Canonical hires software developers?

      Yes, they do.

      I mean, the complaint being aired is that Canonical contributes very little to any open source project. So, it goes to follow that, as a "software developer," your job at Canonical would be to either: 1. Develop Launchpad. 2. Repackage Debian packages.

      I'm aware of the complaints being aired, thank you very much.

      I don't think many people understand what makes a software distributor effective. Debian has about 30000 free software packages. Canonical has about 300 employees. So you can see the scale of the integration job. When Debian or Canonical members package my software, I don't expect them to come back to me and contribute. Quite the contrary. As a developer it is my job to make it as easy for them as possible. When people from Debian or Canonical need to contact me about my software, it usually means that I have screwed up as a developer.

  82. STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blah. They should STFU.
    I've followed Linux since 98 or so, usually dual booting one of the more popular distros and Windows.
    I'm no geek but still an IT pro, and if I can be fussed, I can fix most things rather quickly. Thing is, I rarely had to when using Windows, most things just normally worked or could be gotten to work with a few clicks. In all this time, that was *never* the case with Linux. Not at all in the beginning, where everything from 3D to printing and sound, scanners etc took hours and was simply a pain in the ass to get working or didn't work at all. Later on, things gradually improved, but whenever I thought 'that's it, it's there', I ran into a new big show stopper that made me think 'ready for the Desktop, uh huh'. It didn't change until Ubuntu came about, and then not until 10.04. For me, it's there. Maybe for others it was there before, maybe for others it isn't yet, but I'm, for the first time, so completely happy and content with my Linux environment that I've flipped the switch. *EVERYTHING* works. No more dual boot. Still a windows VM for absolutely essential Windows stuff, granted, but it's rarely used.

    ONLY thanks to Ubuntu. I'm sure if it werent for canonical, I'd still boot my box up and run into some shit that made me think 'yeah guys, the others fixed that 10 years ago' or 'gee if that happened on Windows the Linux guys would laugh their heads off'.

    So Canonical, let them yap and hats off to you.

  83. It is not "gnu/linux" by voss · · Score: 1

    gnu/linux is a richard stallman fantasy. Linus Torvalds came up with Linux he has naming rights he does not use "Gnu" anything.
    He specifically thinks the gnu title is silly.

    The ugly fact is Stallman and his buddies have been working on gnu/hurd for a decade with really nothing beyond
    a 12 year old alpha to show for it.

    http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
    http://xercestech.com/linux-not-gnulinux.geek
    http://atulchitnis.net/writings/why-linux-and-not-gnulinux/

  84. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Ubuntu also has more users than those other distros combined?

    Can we all stop for a second assuming that Linux exists only on desktop computers?

    Debian, RHEL, Centos are massively used in datacenters in the world - where Desktop-oriented distro aren't.

    You don't see them, you don't hear them but they are making your new car, your phone and even your cookies cheaper.

  85. Ubuntu doesn't bother me as much as it used to by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    I'm now running Jaunty, and have been for probably the last four months, since the video card in my FreeBSD box died.

    I give Jaunty credit for not pissing me off to the extent where I've been actively motivated to get rid of it, but that is about the most positive thing I can say for it. Pretty much all Ubuntu is good for is either listening to mp3s, maybe doing some scripting after making my own build of vim, and vegetating in front of Firefox. It's got even better since I wrote my own xsession and got back under Ratpoison.

    If I try and do literally anything else however, frustration is usually the result. Multimedia editing in particular is virtually impossible in Linux, although that is not Shuttleworth's fault. The Ubuntu community also are not people who a sane individual would want to go anywhere near, but then again, that is also standard for Linux.

    I have also always considered Debian to be one of the primary sources of emotional pain in my life, and it still underpins Ubuntu. Even doing something as fundamental as changing my $PATH is a source of frustration; I cannot find out where it is set. It is predictable that Debian's developers feel that /etc/profile is not good enough for them.

    If you want to use Ubuntu, and you know what you are doing, follow the instructions here in order to avoid GNOME, ubuntu-desktop, pulseaudio, and associated eldritch horrors. Ubuntu's binary packaging is generally extremely dubious, but then again, FreeBSD is the only system where I've ever felt entirely comfortable installing pre-built binaries; quality binary packaging apparently does not exist for Linux at all.

  86. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Even if as many people used ubuntu as used suse, fedora, debian and mandriva combined (in your dreams, fanboi), ubuntu has way more complaints than all 4 put together, and this has been the case right from ubuntu's beginning.

  87. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Follow the link, then read the story (link in the first paragraph) that used the same methodology to try to claim that ubuntu sas the most popular distro. What's sauce for the goose is barbeque sauce for roasting the gander :-)

    Ubuntu has a market problem. They know it. This is why they've tried to branch out into cloud, netbook, whatever ... The problem is, they're poisoning the well, because people who are p*ssed off enough to search for any of the terms listed are unhappy users, and will return to the windows fold and say "iinux - I tried that crap."

    Instead of marketing it as a desktop replacement for windows (in many cases, it's not), it should be marketed as a superior product for people who don't want the os to get in their way. It's not like Apple, for example, tries to sell their computers as a replacement for a Windows PC - they make it clear that it's not a Windows-compatible - it's better.

  88. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    The only reason I started using SUSE was because they were the only distribution where my wireless worked easily. The network manager works 99% of the time so you can manage the network settings from your desktop. However, yast lets you set up your network that 1% of the time you have problems.
    I have also found OpenSUSE to have much better support for multiple monitors, or plugging external monitors or projectors into laptops. Much better then ubuntu, however it doesn't seem to utilize the s-video out on my laptops correctly.

  89. we run linux where I work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and its company policy not to mention gnu or richard stallman in any context. We don't terminate employees, but we'll dock them 500 dollars for each infraction. We have everyone sign a memo to this effect so that the monetary fine is agreed to as a term of employment, and while theres been a few holdouts (who we subsequently let go), everyone else seems to be on board.

    The reason we do this is not necessarily anything against the gnu project (ok, richard stallman is a flippin joke), we've just found that those folks who insist on this 'gnu-linux' crap have without fail turned out to be obsessive jerks that can't ship projects in a pragmatic manner consistant with running a business. I highly recommend tactics like this to filter out the useless nerds from your IT department.

  90. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried Ubuntu and dumped Windows, disconnecting the HD with that 'crap-/drm-/spyware' from my machine. I do plan on installing a more poweruser-friendly distro, but that's only after Ubuntu opened the door to me becoming a poweruser.

    I'll repeat another AC's question: Why are you trolling?

  91. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    So what your post is saying is that Ubuntu is not ready for just anyone to set up - which validates my proposition. I can give an opensuse dvd to someone and not have the same worries - installing the codecs, etc., is one click on a web page, then typing in the root password.

  92. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by smegmatic · · Score: 1

    I can understand that poor people might be less likely to use Google, thus skewing the results. But I doubt there are large socioeconomic differences between users of various distros like there are between citizens of different countries and members of different religions. The problem is that more people use Ubuntu, so more people have problems with Ubuntu.

  93. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by Looshi · · Score: 1

    That was my point. There's not, contrary to the original comment.

  94. Re: Your sig by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    You're kinda stretching here, confusing two usages. Which language was your first language? The answer in your post is a prepositional phrase, not a sentence. And if there is any implied subject it is because there is a direct question and context in which the subject is unambiguous. It is acceptable informal grammar, but not preferred.

    Languages such as Japanese and Spanish have the implied subject rule for discrete sentences without any other context. "Walking to the subway" is a complete sentence which conveys "I am walking to the subway." In English that assumption does not exist without aditional context, and it is a fragment. You seem to have provided an example with context to prove a point about context-free grammar.

    "Fixed that for you" does not by itself say who fixed it. The poster's sister might have corrected it, and yelled at the poster until he posted her correction. We know the poster, or at least the account the poster used, not the fixer. Poster could have pasted it into Google, which then replied with "Did you mean....?" with the corrected text, and Google fixed it. You can argue that the post included context, as in the person who posted was also the fixer. But that doesn't support your primary assertion. Outside of context, if you do not make it obvious through context that you are talking about your self, you can't invoke the "when talking about yourself" rule. People have to know you're talking about yourself first. Other languages do this, English does not.

    "Left my wallet in El Segundo," is an example. Do you think the speaker left her wallet in El Segundo? You might think it's a reference to the song "I Left my wallet in El Segundo." Or if you're watching The Ladykillers, it becomes obvious later that Mrs. Munson is talking about that song, but The Sheriff does not know who left their wallet in El Segundo. Being unfamiliar with the song, a viewer might think that Mrs. Munson left her wallet, or that a neighborhood boy left her wallet. The context is intentionally ambiguous, a situation which could not have happened unless you were dead wrong about the implied self rule.

    Vintermann is correct. And "There Fixed That For Ya!" was tongue in cheek, emphasizing the use of a trite phrase or meme.

  95. What's more important? by taff^2 · · Score: 1

    I've been a professional developer for nearly 15 years, and before that I was developing as a hobby. I stopped using windows on my own computers shortly after windows 98 and started using slackware. It was fun, it was interesting and it appealed to me because I was able to dig into it and see how it worked, and then change the way it worked to suit my needs. The computer was mine personally once again. Over the years I tried various other distributions and particularly enjoyed gentoo as it allowed me to configure my entire software environment to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the aging hardware that I had. As the computer allowed me to do more and more of the things I wanted to do, I found more and more interesting little projects and became less interested in what the underlying software was doing.

    When OSX came along I switched to a mac because the things I was doing seemed easier to do on a mac then they did on Linux, and numerous working environments had showed me that windows was still, at least to my mind, as horrific as it had always been. I don't want to say that osx is better than linux, or better than windows, or any of that nonsense (yes I know this is slashdot), because "better" is such a subjective thing. My personal computer is my "Personal" computer. It is there to allow me to work in the way that is best for me, not best for you, and certainly not best for Microsoft, whose software I still find to be completely counter-intuitive and proscriptive.

    I pick the software that allows me to do what I want to do with the minimum amount of effort. When VMWare became available on OSX I thought it would be fantastic as I would finally be able to run linux on my mac alongside osx. Dual booting was too disruptive. I immediately installed my favourite distribution (gentoo) and was frustrated by how much technical knowledge I had to apply to get it working. During the course of configuring my virtual machine to suit my purposes, I scoured the internet for documentation and support with various problems and was amazed to find that most of the relevant documentation and support I need was provided by ubuntu. While I had no problem taking what the ubuntu docs said and applying it to gentoo, it was an extra step that I needed to take with absolutely no payout. I switched to Ubuntu.

    What ubuntu does is allows me to get on with the stuff I need to get on with. The same could be said of any linux distribution, but ubuntu lowers the barrier of entry. Yes I could install Linux from Scratch, and have done in the past, but why bother when I just want to get my work done? Lots of my non-technical friends use Ubuntu, and thankfully they hardly ever bother to ask me any kind of technical support type questions as they are usually able to figure things out by themselves through the ubuntu forums. Which leaves both me and them with more time to get on with what we need to get on with.

    Ubuntu would be nothing without debian which, in turn, would be nothing without GNU/Linux. Having better tools to do the job I need to do is far more important than who makes the tools, but if those tools come with clear documentation and fantastic support then even better. I don't want to spend my life hunched over a keyboard. The time I spend on a computer pays for me to spend time doing other much more interesting things, so anything that let me do my job easier is fine by me. Linux and the whole OSS ecosystem amazes me, but what Ubuntu have done is made it so much easier for anybody to benefit from that ecosystem, and consequently enriched the lives of everybody that uses it.

    Thank you, Canonical, and thank you to the wider OS community. You really are changing the world for the better. Keep up the good work.

    --
    Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
  96. I'll forgive Cannonical on two conditions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1) Admit that 9.10 was a broken release and just because Mark didn't see any "issues" on his very own laptop didn't mean tons of folks didn't have issues.

    2) Apologize for foisting pulse-audio on us with a horrid config file in 8.04, right before you rushed it out the door (you always do this with LTS releases, you seem to be afraid of being stuck with something you don't like for 5 years). pulse-audio sucks all by itself for a lot of folks, but when you add in a config file that even the lead dev of pulse-audio says is completely broken, that is beyond the pale. Go ahead and try googling today for a solution, it's not simple and many of the threads conflict. You never did fix it and in fact in subsequent releases (I'm looking at you 9.10) managed to launch with a mostly working pulse-audio config and then messed it up during some stupid security update for a lot of machines (especially netbooks, like the Dell Mini 9, probably the most popular Linux netbook on the market). I almost forgive you for tying the earliest pulse-audio packages to a scary sounding package named ubuntu-desktop (which was a meta-package that you could actually safely remove, but you wouldn't know that from the name) since you stopped doing it later, but I'm still abit annoyed about that one as well.

    For what it's worth I do use several versions of Ubuntu. I use Debian too. I recall RPM dependency hell all too well to really love Redhat and its children (I know RPM dependency hell is now in the past, but it was a really big pain for a lot of us). I do think you guys are doing a good job generally, but you have got to lose the "We can do no wrong!" attitude, it sucks, especially when you guys do screw up (we all screw up at times). Also, get your Paper-cuts initiative working again, this was the single, best idea you guys have had in 2 years and you let it die as far as I can tell (and perhaps I'm wrong and it's really going full steam ahead, but it doesn't seem to be).

  97. Re:The Linux world would be better off without Ubu by judeancodersfront · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The button order is a 100% total complete non-issue for anybody who has a little bit of a clue.

    It goes beyond a trivial preference because there are programs that don't use the native interface and have buttons on the right. So he is actually causing some interface consistency issues with the change.

    The community clearly didn't like the change so why keep it? Because Shuttleworth cares more about cloning OSX than the collective opinion of the community. He is in his right to use GPL software to clone OSX but he should drop any pretenses about Ubuntu being a distro that is community driven.

  98. Devs don't sit on clouds. by itomato · · Score: 1

    I'll tell you what needs to happen. All these grateful and passionate Users need to band together and organize a conference.

    Once that happens, invite all the Developers to 'come down from their cloud' to visit and participate in this conference.

    The list of workshops you'll want to develop will include 'The life of a Bug; From Discovery to Patch', 'Version Control for Laypeople', and a three parter on 'How Open Source Works'.

    Get off your cloud? How about 'get off your duff'?

    Just like Shuttleworth started Canonical to address userspace conditions, someone needs to get going on the meatspace support structure. Even older than your xfree86.conf file are the arguments 'Devs don't understand Users' and 'Sales doesn't understand Engineering'.

    Now, how about stepping up to the plate?

  99. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > So what your post is saying is that Ubuntu is not ready for just anyone to set up - which validates my
    > proposition. I can give an opensuse dvd to someone and not have the same worries - installing the codecs,
    > etc., is one click on a web page, then typing in the root password.

    No. You're simply drinking your own cool-aid and trying to call it champagne.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  100. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...this is one area where Ubuntu is dropping the ball badly.

    It seems like they could do a MUCH better job of aggregating bug reports and relaying them to upstream projects.

    By now they should have a nice little info-graphic that can tell you where all the rough parts in Linux are.

    You should be able to feed your stuff into an old-Suse style hardware compatability database and have it spit out all of the potential problems.

    If you should avoid Asus P55 boards, then Mark should be able to tell you.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  101. Re: Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who says you can't be both?

    Use a compiler to check the spelling in your programs.

    Use a dictionary to check the spelling in your posts.

    I don't understand how you can be in programming (where every character counts) and not be good at spelling. I don't understand how you can be a developer or designer and not be good at grammar and other language rules. There are patterns to both.

    When I retire from being a developer and architect, I'll give the Great American novel a go. I, for one, can get both sorts of spelling right. And English isn't my first language. Go figure.

    Now get off my lawn.

  102. Re: Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now, mod me down!

    Bee carefull what u wish four.

    --
    Post worded as intended. Any "Fixed that for you" jokes will be modded into oblivion. Yes, I know I can't post and mod.

  103. Re:Ubuntu users have more problems by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

    Hah! I love it. In the midst of singing the praises of Ubuntu I throw a small shout out to OpenSUSE and everybody responds to the latter. Wonderful. OpenSUSE in the last few years has been just marvelous, and I'm not alone in thinking this, apparently. SUSE is great.

  104. What is user-friendly is not Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big problem with Ubuntu is that it's trying to make Linux easy to use. You can't actually do that and still have it remain Linux.

  105. Re: Your sig by eyore15 · · Score: 1

    Actually, some of us our English majors. I have a BS and MS in English Education and the MS includes a concentration on Educational Technology. Don't leave us English folk out just because ...