Whats the big deal about Ubuntu?

[Prosidius]

I've installed the latest version and I don't see why it's so great. It comes with very few packages and no compiler. I couldn't compile a gnome theme because of this! Whats the big deal about the thing anyway?

[markwolfe Veteran]

I think part of its appeal is that it is a 1-CD load with a lot of the apps that a newcomer would need.

If you need to add a compiler, you just apt-get it. But, that comes as users get more advanced.

[msg43]

yep it big b/c it good for noob only reason just like fedora or suse but imo better

[thechitowncubs]

It's user friendly... it organizes all the stuff you need very efficiently.

It is very easy to get packages/programs working. It has a great beginners guide. It isn't overwhelming. It is simple. It still has everything you'd ever want in a linux distro. Great community, good support. Want me to go on?

[Prosidius]

Continue on. :p

[Fotix]

Ubuntu, it slices, it dices, it cooks a mean steak, it mows the lawn, it cleans the cookie crumbs off your shirt, it... oh yeah.

I like how stable it's been compared to MEPIS when I test drived that distro. I like the .deb package system over .rpm hell I used to have with Mandrake.

I like Xandros, but being the upgradeaholic that I am, wanted a newer Xorg, and Linux Kernel. And in an easy way.

I like KDE more than GNOME but I'm still waiting for Kubuntu to get polished off.

[raid517]

Well I tried it for about two weeks. It hardly came with any codecs - and gave no clear indication how to obtain those that a 'n00b' would need to play their mutimedia files. It was pretty sparce, didn't come with many applications - and the repositories were rarely ever updated in any major way - so that on one instance I went a full 5 days without a single update. (If you understood Debian, you would know how unusual that was). Indeed I think that really they only do major upgrades between distributions. My advice is, if you like Debian and enjoy using apt-get, try a much more pure Debian distro like Kanotix. It promises (unlike Ubuntu/Kubuntu) to maintain almost full compatability with the debian unstable source tree, which still managing to offer a fairly wide spread of the very latest apps and features.

It took me two weeks to set up Ubuntu - and two days to fully set up Kanotix.

I like being able to go to official and unnoficial repositories specifically built for Debian Sid unstable, while being safe knowing that I am not breaking my system by mixing packages from other distros.

I just feel much more connected to the wider Debian community by doing things this way.

GJ

[vertigosity]

Yeah, it's the perfect distro, unless you're on dialup... in which case, it'll take you about a week of overnight downloading until you're finished apt-getting :-/

(the relevance being that at least a night of that is getting all the dev packages, and two or three nights to finish fetching the necessary upgrades to be able to use the dev packages)

Edited April 27, 2005 by vertigosity

[Mike Douglas]

Well I tried it for about two weeks. It hardly came with any codecs - and gave no clear indication how to obtain those that a 'n00b' would need to play their mutimedia files. It was pretty sparce, didn't come with many applications - and the repositories were rarely ever updated in any major way - so that on one instance I went a full 5 days without a single update. (If you understood Debian, you would know how unusual that was). Indeed I think that really they only do major upgrades between distributions. My advice is, if you like Debian and enjoy using apt-get, try a much more pure Debian distro like Kanotix. It promises (unlike Ubuntu/Kubuntu) to maintain almost full compatability with the debian unstable source tree, which still managing to offer a fairly wide spread of the very latest apps and features.

It took me two weeks to set up Ubuntu - and two days to fully set up Kanotix.

I like being able to go to official and unnoficial repositories specifically built for Debian Sid unstable, while being safe knowing that I am not breaking my system by mixing packages from other distros.

I just feel much more connected to the wider Debian community by doing things this way.

GJ

585835708[/snapback]

Ubuntu comes with no more or less than what Debian Sid has based on codecs, not that a quick google search (first result of "ubuntu mp3") wouldn't provide you with how to install them. The whole idea of not coming with hundreds of extra packages is to streamline the desktop. Sane defaults, not 3 CD distros is what GNU/Linux needs.

You don't seem to understand how the stable branch works, they take a snapshot of Debian Sid, stablize it and release it. A huge amount of "QA" goes into making sure that all of the packages work correctly. If you want unstable you can track the latest release "Breezy Badger".

Debian is broken. Three years without a stable release shows just how broken it is. There wouldn't be a need for Ubuntu if Debian wasn't like this. They are still the only major distro stuck on Xfree86. Now there has been some talk about moving debian to a faster release cycle, so hopefully they can improve that (and make Ubuntu/Debian colaberation(sp) much easier).

[raid517]

Well I have no problem installing codecs for MP3 playback, or any other kind of playback for that matter. I've been a Linux user for 5 years, soi I should at least know a little about what I'm doing. It was just the sheer extent of what had been removed that suprised me. In this regard they were even more strict than the official Debian developers - who I used to think were pretty strict already. I don't know if I agree that Debian is broken, I think that Sarge will probably move out of testing later this year - and so the development cycle will continue. Also you speak as though almost no QA goes into any of the other official Debian branches. I assure you it does - which is why as you said it has taken 3 years plus to approach the point where they may soon release another stable version of their distro. And Ubuntu don't take so long to release updates because they care so much about QA. I'm sure they do care about QA - but their biggest problem is lack of developers. I know for a fact that they are a relatively small team (Kubuntu for example only has two developers maintaining the entire project). Their problem is trying to do QA in the light of having so few staff and so many updates comming daily from the regular debian peeps to deal with.

Also I don't like distros very much that break compatability with the official Debian source tree. I'm all for variety, but when it comes down to having several different versions of Debian that are largely incompatable with each other, then I think it just gets silly. Far better to strive to maintain compatability and work with the Debian developers, so that any problems that users might encounter can very quickly be passed up stream and and might have a much better chance of being resolved than they would if it were left to a few developers with little time to answer user concerns, because they are too busy continually trying to play catch up with the debian development team.

And no updates isn't necessarily a good thing. What about security holes? What about bugs? At least with the official debian distros if you have a problem on a particular day, there is a good chance that it might be resolved a few days later by one of the many updates that are regularly released. This is true even for the regular Debian 'Woody' stable branch where many new updates are applied on a regular (sometimes daily) basis.

Well that's just my view. I do think there is a lot of hype in Ubuntu. I don't quite understand it.

ButI guess it's each to their own. So whatever works for you is good enough.

GJ

[Malisk]

MEPIS fully supports mp3 playback out of the box AFAIK, and it's using the same philosophy as Ubuntu. Actually it was the 4th most popular distro on DistroWatch last time I checked, and I'm surprised it's not getting more attention as well. 1 CD, easy to use, blah blah blah. :) I think it's even better designed in one way, as the very same CD you download for use as a Live CD is used to install MEPIS onto your harddrive if you like it. The distro is just KDE based instead of Gnome, which should appeal even more to Windows users, I think.

Like Ubuntu, MEPIS is Debian-based.

[Miuku.]

SSDW.

[thechitowncubs]

MEPIS fully supports mp3 playback out of the box AFAIK, and it's using the same philosophy as Ubuntu. Actually it was the 4th most popular distro on DistroWatch last time I checked, and I'm surprised it's not getting more attention as well. 1 CD, easy to use, blah blah blah. :) I think it's even better designed in one way, as the very same CD you download for use as a Live CD is used to install MEPIS onto your harddrive if you like it. The distro is just KDE based instead of Gnome, which should appeal even more to Windows users, I think.

Like Ubuntu, MEPIS is Debian-based.

585836198[/snapback]

MEPIS uses the debian repositories, which is bound to cause problems in some areas. But it also helps maintain consistency. And why does everyone seem to think that KDE is more appealing to windows users? I think it's exactly the opposite. KDE seems very bloated and even though it does seem a little more responsive, it doesn't feel right to most people that use gnome. It just feels like TOO much.

The only updates Ubuntu releases are security updates. This way of going about it is much easier to maintain consistency and provide MUCH more efficient support.

But, you can add the backports repository and recieve all the backports which are updated pretty regularly.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

From what I have gathered after reading a few threads on it, this distro seems like a nice little OS to install for a home user who wants to surf web, read emails and make the odd document.

OK, I realise it can be used in more powerful ways, but that's how I'd see it!?

[Fotix]

My biggest gripe with the latest release of MEPIS was with stability, and some bugs. It didn't take very long before it would crash or weird s--- would happen like the hard drive icon on the deskop became 8 icons of the same thing next time I'd boot into it without me actually doing anything besides reboot.

[Miuku.]

OK, I realise it can be used in more powerful ways, but that's how I'd see it!?

585836258[/snapback]

What you have to realize here, is that most of Linux zealots are pretty clueless.

They think because they compile everything from scratch and spend countless hours building their system from scratch that it "is more powerful" than your average out of the box Linux distro.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Just because Ubuntu is easy to setup and use out of the box, it doesn't make it any "less powerful" than any other distro out there, just the way things are done and operated is different.

[Mike Douglas]

Well I have no problem installing codecs for MP3 playback, or any other kind of playback for that matter.

Ogg Vorbis and Theora work great out-of-the-box. I'm sure we're all aware of the patent mindfield that is MP3, but a patent lawsuit could easily destroy such a small company as Canonical.

Also you speak as though almost no QA goes into any of the other official Debian branches. I assure you it does - which is why as you said it has taken 3 years plus to approach the point where they may soon release another stable version of their distro.

I was referring to sid at that point, sarge and woody are uber stable :ninja:

And Ubuntu don't take so long to release updates because they care so much about QA. I'm sure they do care about QA - but their biggest problem is lack of developers.

This is where all Ubuntu users are in great debt to Debian, they handle 75%-80% of Ubuntu packages themselves. This leaves the Ubuntu developers to do cool things like http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com

I know for a fact that they are a relatively small team (Kubuntu for example only has two developers maintaining the entire project).

The Kubuntu devs are truely miracle workers (though I here Mepis manages on one developer ;) ).

Their problem is trying to do QA in the light of having so few staff and so many updates comming daily from the regular debian peeps to deal with.

Well a Ubuntu release is handled a little different way. The timeline from branch to release is 6 months (its a time-based release) where for the first 4.5 months they import packages straight from Sid; all the cool new features are created during this time. The last 1.5 months are spent on QA, making sure all of "main" is in release shape. That way they can hand much of the work off on Debian and it's plethora of developers, while still having a kickass desktop.

Also I don't like distros very much that break compatability with the official Debian source tree. I'm all for variety, but when it comes down to having several different versions of Debian that are largely incompatable with each other, then I think it just gets silly.

If Sarge hadn't been delayed then the Ubuntu patches would have been sent upstream already. As soon as Debian starts accepting major changes, the compatibility should return.

Far better to strive to maintain compatability and work with the Debian developers, so that any problems that users might encounter can very quickly be passed up stream and and might have a much better chance of being resolved than they would if it were left to a few developers with little time to answer user concerns, because they are too busy continually trying to play catch up with the debian development team.

See above post.

And no updates isn't necessarily a good thing. What about security holes? What about bugs? At least with the official debian distros if you have a problem on a particular day, there is a good chance that it might be resolved a few days later by one of the many updates that are regularly released. This is true even for the regular Debian 'Woody' stable branch where many new updates are applied on a regular (sometimes daily) basis.

Sorry, by no updates, I ment feature-wise. All security and major bugs are fixed and pushed to the stable releases (for upto 18 months of the release).

[Aaron Veteran]

What you have to realize here, is that most of Linux zealots are pretty clueless.

They think because they compile everything from scratch and spend countless hours building their system from scratch that it "is more powerful" than your average out of the box Linux distro.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

Just because Ubuntu is easy to setup and use out of the box, it doesn't make it any "less powerful" than any other distro out there, just the way things are done and operated is different.

585836275[/snapback]

EXACTLY!

It is all Linux after all, the only differences really (for the most part) are the install included applications. I jsut finsihed up a Linux Admin course that was taught using Fedoar Core 3, yet I was able to complete every task needed with my Ubuntu laptop setup.

It is all about finding the glove that fits your hand, and the Linux community overall will benefit if everyone would take a similar view.

[ThunderRiver]

The problem with Linux now a day is that it is useless to run it on less than powerful machines (I am talking about Pentium MMX 200 Mhz class machine). Even Damn Small Linux has troubles at times.

Instead of Linux (which is merely a kernel with tons of packages), I would highly suggest a proven OS such as OpenBSD/FreeBSD.

Ubuntu is not that great, but its simplicity gives the distro the edge over others. Now if you are only talking about simplicity, BSD does even better job. Everything is simple, and even the app-get in Debian is a copied concept from BSD ports system. What more do I need to say?

User interface in Ubuntu is limited as it does not give you a whole lot of options. If you depend on KDE based applications heavily, you are in troubles. With BSD however, you have unrestricted options on what GUI to use.

[Aaron Veteran]

The problem with Linux now a day is that it is useless to run it on less than powerful machines (I am talking about Pentium MMX 200 Mhz class machine). Even Damn Small Linux has troubles at times.

Instead of Linux (which is merely a kernel with tons of packages), I would highly suggest a proven OS such as OpenBSD/FreeBSD.

Ubuntu is not that great, but its simplicity gives the distro the edge over others. Now if you are only talking about simplicity, BSD does even better job. Everything is simple, and even the app-get in Debian is a copied concept from BSD ports system. What more do I need to say?

User interface in Ubuntu is limited as it does not give you a whole lot of options. If you depend on KDE based applications heavily, you are in troubles. With BSD however, you have unrestricted options on what GUI to use.

585836934[/snapback]

I do remeber the first time I dabbled in Linux, around RH 5ish, it did run super on low end stuff. Definately has become more hardware needy over the years, but still runs well on lower end stuff than comparable Windows variants. Speed of the isntall really depends mostly on your choice of Desktop Environment.

I agree that Ubntu interace is basic and simple, that is precisely why I like it. But what do you mean about being in trouble if I want to use KDE apps? I have and do run KDE apps in Gnome all the time... :huh:

[Mike Douglas]

User interface in Ubuntu is limited as it does not give you a whole lot of options. If you depend on KDE based applications heavily, you are in troubles. With BSD however, you have unrestricted options on what GUI to use.

585836934[/snapback]

:huh: Where did you hear that gem? Right now on my main Ubuntu laptop, I have GNOME 2.10, e17, ion3, fvwm2, and openbox3. All run with no problem. But hey, BSD is cool, right? ;)

[Knight']

I hate Ubuntu and all Debian based distro's. Their scripts are so different to what I'm used to, it feels like a completly different OS.

[raid517]

Everything is different until you get used to it. I was a Gentoo user for 3 years. But I got bored with broken compilers and apps and the long tedius compile times. I installed gentoo so many times I think I could do it in my sleep (and in a couple of instances I think I actually did) so after a while I just felt I had nothing left to prove.

But you are right. People often say that you should use Gentoo 'because you will learn so much about Linux very quickly.' But the problem I found was that what I learned most about was Gentoo and the Gentoo way of doing things, so that when I moved to a different distro (as in Debian) I felt like a total n00b again. I had no idea how to do anything. It did indeed feel like a completely new OS. But I overcame that just like I overcame gentoo - and now I doubt I would ever dream of switching.

GJ

[MateoGWJ]

I hate Ubuntu and all Debian based distro's. Their scripts are so different to what I'm used to, it feels like a completly different OS.

585838298[/snapback]

Yeah, but you use gentoo, so we love ya anyway! Your like the crazy uncle that is always out in the shed hot rodding a blender!

[Prosidius]

The thing is I prefer Debian, not Knoppix, MEPIS, just pure Debian. I understand that they haven't released a stable release since 2002, but who really uses the stable? Sarge is stable enough to use anway.