SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#26 2009-11-16 08:46:20

klanger
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2009-02-18
Posts: 596

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

For outsiders (typical - "not power" - windows or mac users) all linux distros are seen as one thing - LINUX (and it is a big sucess that thay know this "brand"!.

When you really want to move to open source OS's you will do it - no matter how many distros there are in the internet to download.

With google as your partner is it very easy to get some basic idea how to navigate in linux world.

Open source is so much fun no matter what distro you run... mainly because there is the choice of free base, and free apps.

Offline

Help fund CrunchBang, donate to the project!

#27 2009-11-16 09:20:12

Zen:Core
#! CrunchBanger
From: Bleeding Kansas
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 195

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

I've been in a state of pondering all of Phillip's questions and the original question of what's wrong with Ubuntu and all that has done is raise new questions.

My experience with Ubuntu is that every time a new version comes out it initially leaves something to be desired, but in the end it gets ironed out. So, Karmic may bite the big one now in many peoples eyes, but things will slowly come together. Plus, this release introduced some significant changes and it seems as though a clean and fresh install is really what's needed to make it usable and "just as buggy" as any new Ubuntu release is when it's first released, but it does seem they got a little over zealous.

I've seen a trend as of late though. Both 64 Studio and Pure:Dyne have moved from a Debian based system to a Ubuntu base. Why? I don't know. 64 Studio is still using 8.04 as it's base though and Pure:Dyne switched over in August. I wonder now though, if the bad reception of Karmic will make these 2 wonder if they made the right choices. Also, it seems that 64 Studio and Ubuntu Studio are actively sharing ideas and what not. I wonder what will come of that relationship?

What I like about Ubuntu is that I can get it set-up and going relatively quickly and painlessly. I'd rather get to work, than fight with my distro for days to get a decent audio environment going. I do feel like though that, Ubuntu is taking part of the linux experience away by making things too automated. It's becoming a car that does it's own oil changes. 

I agree with illumin8's point of view on many points. I've pondered if Ubuntu might be becoming the linux version of Microsoft, but it is always easiest to criticize the biggest dog on the block. Ubuntu is a powerhouse and dissent comes at those in power, right?

One of Nietzsche's most famous quotes is. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Is Canonical becoming it's own type of monster so that it may battle with other monsters? I've read a lot of mailing lists, forums and blogs and it's troubling that the Ubuntu and Debian climates seem to be becoming incendiary towards each other.

What's wrong with Ubuntu? Is it that Ubuntu seems mainly concerned with Ubuntu? Is it that it's "under the thumb" of a corporation? Or is it that it gets the majority of attention and other distributions feel as though they aren't getting their fare share of credit for what they've done for the linux community?

Are there too many Linux distributions? To some extent, but variety is the spice of life. (Hannah Montana Linux seriously?)

Is the Linux community spreading itself too thin to its own detriment? The community seems to be spreading itself too thin by choosing sides and building walls. Not all are as open and friendly as I've seen here.

Every coin has 2 sides. The debate will rage on. We all must be careful lest we all become monsters.


|My Band: 12 Honest Men|

Offline

#28 2009-11-16 10:02:11

corenominal
WRONG
From: Lincoln, UK
Registered: 2008-11-20
Posts: 5,057
Website

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

omns wrote:

I think I'd answer question 1 by posing another question. What is a distro? Is it a distribution with its own package base or is it a derivative that tweaks another distros base, or both?

This is a good question. I guess the definition of a distro varies from person to person. I know some people, including myself, have questioned CrunchBang's validity as a distro and many see it as a remaster, as opposed to a full distro. Personally, I am not too bothered either way, it is what it is, but some people do insist on labels. smile

In terms of the question I posed, I would probably define a distribution as just that, a copy of a GNU/Linux OS which is distributed using some type of delivery method, e.g. online, CD media etc. So, in this instance, CrunchBang qualifies, as do other remasters and re-spins. Maybe the only other qualifier, because of question 2, would be that there should be some semblance of a community behind the distro.

omns wrote:

As for Q2 I guess it depends on how you view the results of all the branched out efforts from the main distros. Do they give back or detract from the original?

You could probably ask a whole bunch of Debian developers this question, with "they" being Ubuntu, and be answered with many conflicting opinions. I do not normally indulge in 'what ifs', but, what if instead of creating and funding Ubuntu, Canonical had actually directly funded Debian and other upstream projects? Was the re-branding absolutely necessary, and if so, who for? Surely Canonical could still have built a business around supporting Debian, without having to have absolute control over it? Which I think relates to something illumin8 mentioned:

illumin8 wrote:

Debian seems to make decisions with the broader view in mind. Ubuntu seems to make decisions based on what is best for Ubuntu and Canonical's business goals. I would be willing to change my mind about this, but that is the conclusion I have come to based on my interaction with them. Personally I think this is a very serious issue.

I agree, it is a very serious issue. For myself, it is the fundamental difference between the two.

As I currently understand Debian, it has a carefully organized structure with an elected leader and technical committee. It is funded by donations which are handled by a non-profit corporation, Software in the Public Interest.

As I currently understand Ubuntu, it has a "benevolent", non-elected leader who is also the main financial "sponsor". There is organized structure in the form of a Technical Board and Community Council. The Technical Board has 6 members, including the project leader and all members work for Canonical (can this be confirmed?), the project leader's company. The Community Council has some members which do not work for Canonical. Council members are elected by Ubuntu members, such as myself. Many people consider the Community Council to be a team without teeth, somewhat akin to how the Pope looks upon the United Nations.

With the above in mind, I think illumin8's observation could be considered accurate.

toor58 wrote:

Having watched Ubuntu's development since 7.04, I feel strongly within myself that it is moving toward a proprietary like nature. Every one can disagree if you want. I have no problem with that. But, I strongly feel that this is taking place. There are many little things that lead me to think this way. And then there are some, shall I say, "intangibles", things that I can not quite put my finger on, so to speak. More akin to an intuitive insight.

I think there may be some justification in you feeling this way; afterall, was Ubuntu not initially sold to users and unpaid developers as Linux for human beings, a Linux distribution which was somehow entwined with humanity itself, an ethically pure distribution, a moral, upright, honest, righteous, virtuous, and honorable OS? Or is that viewpoint a little too cynical? big_smile Eitherway, I do sometimes wonder whether Canonical has magically spellbound an entire army of users, advocates and developers to promote and work on Ubuntu, just so that the company has a platform to launch proprietary services such as Ubuntu One -- okay, so the client is open source software, but what use is it without the proprietary server software?

https://one.ubuntu.com/ wrote:

Ubuntu One is your personal cloud.

Cloud computing, meh.

Did I mention I have become somewhat disillusioned with Ubuntu? big_smile

Zen:Core wrote:

Is the Linux community spreading itself too thin to its own detriment? The community seems to be spreading itself too thin by choosing sides and building walls. Not all are as open and friendly as I've seen here.

Every coin has 2 sides. The debate will rage on. We all must be careful lest we all become monsters.

Wise words. I hope nobody misinterprets anything I have typed as anything other than just throwing some thoughts out there. smile

Offline

#29 2009-11-16 10:32:55

Holi
The Linux Norseman
From: Skara, Sweden
Registered: 2009-02-04
Posts: 76

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

I've been on and off ubuntu since dapper (6.06) and well.... In my experience every new version has been at least as buggy as this last one (was it 8.04 they switched from good old xorg.conf and I couldn't get a picture on any of my or my friends computers without disabling.. whatever it was I had to disable).

But also every new version one month after release has been working better and felt more solid than the previous release (albeit running a little bit slower... Software bloat is everywhere and especially in mainstream software).

Tbh I couldn't care less about which distro crunchbang bases it's core of (apart from me being extremely partial to .deb since of mainstream adoption and widespread support). If you don't like their proprietary offerings then don't use them (IE cloud computing... the buzzword which no one understands and everyone wants).

From my perspective the major complaints about ubuntu stem from jealousy or indignation since they do something a lot more people seem to like in comparison to their own favourite distro of choice. Yes ubuntu is debian in a pretty package. Yes ubuntu might not have contributed nearly as much to the linux cause as red hat when it comes to lines of code. In the end it doesn't matter what the contribute or not. What matters are that people actually like using ubuntu. Why? I can't tell you their reasons but mine are that ubuntu despite all complaints has always worked better out of the box than it's rivals (yes that for me includes various versions of windows (which btw resembles linux more and more when it comes to confusion as to what version one should use) and bsd and mac...)

Uhm... Hope this random rant didn't disrupt too much of the current discussion smile


42 - Just a viking from the north, doing his thing!

Offline

#30 2009-11-16 10:38:15

arpinux
#! Die Hard
From: Montréal, France
Registered: 2009-01-15
Posts: 687
Website

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

hi  #!ers,
we all knew that Linux is a choice. to make a choice, we have to be educated, but  to make a 'free' choice, you have to educate yourself. i thinks that's the difference between Debian & Ubuntu: Ubuntu educate you (better than micro$oft...) while Debian said "educate yourself" . not the same goal, not the same marketing, not the same users, but i think it's the same spirit. Debian wait for you to come, Ubuntu push you to come.   ..... and Crunchbang seduce you wink

Offline

#31 2009-11-16 22:25:55

Zen:Core
#! CrunchBanger
From: Bleeding Kansas
Registered: 2009-11-09
Posts: 195

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

Holi wrote:
What matters are that people actually like using ubuntu. Why? I can't tell you their reasons but mine are that ubuntu despite all complaints has always worked better out of the box than it's rivals

That's hitting the nail on the head. Here in the states Wal-Mart is huge and while I don't like their business practices or even shopping there I do because they are the cheapest game in town and they have everything under one roof. Some peoples opinion of Ubuntu seems to be the same. Linux is about freedom and it can be perceived that Ubuntu is monopolizing linux, by having the largest market share. Over other distros I've tried Ubuntu is easier to set up and just plain convenient. I have liked other ditros better along some lines, but at the end of the day I come back to convenience. Like shopping at Wal-Mart, I don't like to, but out of convenience and economics (read "time" in the linux context) I still do.

corenominal wrote:
I hope nobody misinterprets anything I have typed as anything other than just throwing some thoughts out there.

I think I get where you're coming from. It's just some thoughts you're having and you're not trying to sway anyone else's opinions one way or the other. That is the thinking pattern of a philosopher sir, because in philosophy there are no right and wrong answers. If you question something then you're showing that you are not 100% behind it. Believing in something 100% is what causes fanaticism and blind devotion. Believing in something 99% or less will allow one to have an open mind to other ideas and opinions. Debates and arguments happen, because neither side is 100% right, but they want to be so badly that they become blind to the big picture.

Maybe that's what the big picture is here or is it the big question? Is Ubuntu that 100%, only concerned with its own interests that it's lost something along the way?

Just playing Devil's advocate. I lean both ways in a lot of debates. If everything had one right answer then we would have no war or any world problems. If only things were that cut and dry. Without bad there is no good and vice versa.

Last edited by Zen:Core (2009-11-16 22:30:16)


|My Band: 12 Honest Men|

Offline

#32 2009-11-17 05:27:18

Chetamonye
#! Member
From: California
Registered: 2009-07-23
Posts: 65

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

Holi wrote:

I've been on and off ubuntu since dapper (6.06) and well.... In my experience every new version has been at least as buggy as this last one (was it 8.04 they switched from good old xorg.conf and I couldn't get a picture on any of my or my friends computers without disabling.. whatever it was I had to disable).

I hated when they got rid of good old xorg.conf also.  My old thinkpads were just fine till then.  Of course Ubuntu wasn't the only distro that did this.

Holi wrote:

But also every new version one month after release has been working better and felt more solid than the previous release (albeit running a little bit slower... Software bloat is everywhere and especially in mainstream software).

I agree with you.  It usually seems to work a little better, and get a little slower.

Holi wrote:

From my perspective the major complaints about ubuntu stem from jealousy or indignation since they do something a lot more people seem to like in comparison to their own favourite distro of choice. Yes ubuntu is debian in a pretty package. Yes ubuntu might not have contributed nearly as much to the linux cause as red hat when it comes to lines of code. In the end it doesn't matter what the contribute or not. What matters are that people actually like using ubuntu. Why? I can't tell you their reasons but mine are that ubuntu despite all complaints has always worked better out of the box than it's rivals (yes that for me includes various versions of windows (which btw resembles linux more and more when it comes to confusion as to what version one should use) and bsd and mac...)

I wouldn't agree that everything works better.  Maybe as you say, out of the box.  It is a lot easier to get started in ubuntu.  When I finished tweaking slackware, it ran beautifully.  Better than I have ever gotten ubuntu to run.  But then, I didn't devote the time to ubuntu that I did with slack.  Instead of doing a make install, or slackbuild, I decided to run apt-get.  Much, much easier.  It didn't run as cleanly, or as fast, but it was easy.  With some of the older distros, they expect you to do the work.  With ubuntu, not so much.  I believe that is it's major attraction.  It's not the fastest, but it may be the fastest to set up and start using.

Holi wrote:

Uhm... Hope this random rant didn't disrupt too much of the current discussion smile

I wouldn't say that adding your perspective is disrupting the discussion.  I think Phillip is looking at all of our comments on this subject.

Chet

Offline

#33 2009-11-17 09:29:39

corenominal
WRONG
From: Lincoln, UK
Registered: 2008-11-20
Posts: 5,057
Website

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

Chetamonye wrote:

I wouldn't say that adding your perspective is disrupting the discussion.  I think Phillip is looking at all of our comments on this subject.

I am indeed. Everyone is more than welcome to give their opinions, so please do not hold back. smile

Offline

#34 2009-11-17 20:29:05

fox
#! Junkie
From: Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Registered: 2009-05-10
Posts: 362

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

In that case, I will add my two cents.  On the five questions:
(1) Are there too many Linux distributions?
I think there are, but given the nature of the open source movement, I don't see any easy way to do something about it.

(2) Is the Linux community spreading itself too thin to its own detriment?
I think it is, and this is the only reason I answered yes to #1.  If more people cooperated on fewer distros, my opinion is that the distros would be at least more bug-free if not better overall.  But that's an uneducated opinion, I haven't worked on any distro in a way that teaches me how people work together to create one.

(3) Ask yourself, if there was only one Linux distribution, which one should it be?
My personal opinion would be Debian or Ubuntu, but that's coloured by my positive experience with Debian-based distros and especially Ubuntu.

(4) If you can answer the previous question, ask yourself, are you already using it?
Although I am always testing (or at least examining) different distros, the ones I actually use are Ubuntu or a variant (UNR) or a derivative (CrunchBang).

(5) If not, why not?
Not applicable.

Frankly, none of these questions has any bearing on my opinion as to whether CrunchBang should be based on Debian or Ubuntu.  I appreciate both, and while Debian is the more ideologically pure, in the bigger philosophical picture the distinction is much finer than the philosophical distinction between using Linux and either MacOS or Windows.  That's where my philosophical "energy" is directed, and although I am still mostly MacOS-based, I am putting a lot of time into Linux with the idea of moving over to it eventually, because I believe in the open source concept.

The question of Debian vs Ubuntu as a base for CrunchBang is a practical one for me.  Debian has a much longer cycle with older software.  It's stable and fast once it's loaded, but Ubuntu has done some great things for speeding up boot time, and that's important for me when I use a netbook (mainly for mail checking and web browsing).  The latest UNR is fantastic; quick booting, beautiful boot graphics, nice desktop interface, fast wireless connection (it's connected the second the boot sequence is finished!), and much better power control resulting in improved battery time.  All of these are much improved over 9.04 and are things that UNR does better than CrunchBang.  In comparison with UNR 9.10, CrunchBang 9.04 is more responsive once it is loaded and I like its Conky implementation. The more basic interface works well on netbooks, and is as good or better than UNR for me. 

Wouldn't it be nice to have the best of both in one distro?  I'm pretty sure I'll get it if CrunchBang 9.10 is based on Ubuntu 9.10, but less sure if it's based on Debian, mainly because I don't think Debian has provided any innovations on boot time or wireless connection.  (Not sure about power  management.)  CrunchBang is already light and fast once running; would going to a Debian base improve that any more and if so, would it improve the other things the new version of Ubuntu has improved upon?


Mac user with Linux tendencies
#!CrunchBang Waldorf & Ubuntu 13.04 on Acer 1810TZ (OCZ Vertex 2 128gb SSD)
Various linux virtual machines on a Mac mini, an iMac and a MacBook Air

Offline

#35 2009-11-17 22:18:41

benj1
Wiki Wizard
From: Yorkshire, England
Registered: 2009-09-05
Posts: 1,084

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

fox wrote:

(3) Ask yourself, if there was only one Linux distribution, which one should it be?
My personal opinion would be Debian or Ubuntu, but that's coloured by my positive experience with Debian-based distros and especially Ubuntu.

Just to pose another question, if i had asked you this same question in september 2004 (before ubuntu had being released) i assume your answer would have been different, do you not think limiting distros would be limiting what new innovations could bring?

to counter a possible response in advance. I agree, in a perfect world the potential distro creator could go to the members of 'The Linux Distro' with their ideas, and they would be accepted. In reality they probably wouldn't, they (the ideas) would need to be proved to work first.

To me open source development is more akin to evolution. selection of the fittest requires variety to select from, limiting that variety is bad because it leads to a suboptimal selection pool.


- - - - - - - - Wiki Pages - - - - - - -
#! install guide           *autostart programs, modify the menu & keybindings
configuring Conky       *installing scripts

Offline

#36 2009-11-18 08:37:27

qbrick
#! CrunchBanger
From: Hannover, Germany
Registered: 2009-07-20
Posts: 199

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

Instead of testing the big ships' pre-releases, people today start their own ego trip (I do not look over to Ubuntu -> remember Mandrake which was a distro built up from an existing one, but which stayed close enough to RH for quite a while, so you could look at them as an external team).
So if there really is a larger userbase compared to 1998, it goes wasted. The result is a lack of polish we unfortunately see today.

I'd rate stability higher than bells & whistles. Where people struggled with hardware ten yrs ago, they struggle with lack of quality today. This has to change IMO.

Offline

#37 2009-11-18 19:53:46

phohammer
Member
Registered: 2009-05-23
Posts: 32
Website

Re: What's wrong with ubuntu

anonymous wrote:

3,4,5. I refuse to answer these questions. No matter what distro was picked as "the one", there would be no way to satisfy everyone's wants. And besides, since Linux is open source anyone could make a Linux distro and then post it on their blog or site as an experiment to see if people like it.

Exactly. I haven't even found a Linux distro that satisfies me. Let alone trying to choose one for the entire GNU/Linux community. I presonally love
the diversity. I just think that it appears we are spreading ourselves too thin because we haven't collected enough users to make a really large impact
mainstream computing.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo