Why don't you use Ubuntu?


Recommended Posts

night_stalker_z

I prefer Debian as the desktop has icons and it uses a root account for admin stuff unlike Ubuntu which just uses the users password.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin-uk
I bought into all the hype before I tried it, and it was a big let down. The whole OS just seemed like something coded in someone's bedroom, I still found a lot of things hard to do, couldn't get on with gnome and found kde in kubuntu very poorly implemented.

I find openSUSE 100x better than ubuntu on all of it's claims of user-friendliness and the thing just looks damn sexy. Dual booting windows and suse at the moment, it's a pleasure to use.

Same here really, except im dual booting with fedora.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch00

On my secondary PC I use Arch because I love (yes I love) learning the inner workings of Linux and configuring my system myself and all that that pretty much anyone who's ever used Arch knows what I'm talking about. But even with all that knowledge I still do use Ubuntu on my main machine, just because I can't be hassled on my main every day computer to be screwing around with things. On this computer I want things to Just Work? so that if I have some work to do, everything is already set up and I know I won't have any problems. So that's why I do and don't use Ubuntu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian M.

Personally, I find Ubuntu a bit too "point and clicky". Unfortunately many distros are taking this approach nowadays to attract new users, but seemingly forgetting about us lot who prefer to do things the hard way :D.

Also, it doesn't seem to be able to keep hardware support between releases. I tried it on my laptop the other day, and in Fiesty, Wireless doesnt work at all (even after an hour of trying to get ndiswrapper to work), but brightness/volume keys work. Gutsy is the opposite, and the wireless works ootb, but there's no way to get the Fn keys working. Currently using Slackware on it, and everything works fine (although things like wireless needed configuring, the config worked, and stayed working).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro
I prefer Debian as the desktop has icons and it uses a root account for admin stuff unlike Ubuntu which just uses the users password.

which is still running things being "root".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz
I am a gobolinux user. Ubuntu is really good, but they continue as with all the other countless distros out there to use a directory structure that is based on a 1960 server OS design. I think that its time to get rid of package managers and allow the directory tree to serve as its own package manager. Ubuntu continues to hide the weaknesses of this hierarchy under pretty desktop effects and other modern OS features. If they want me to take their distro seriously they need to break away from the mold and really make a change that will pave their way to the forefront of desktop PC's. Instead of sending files all over the place programs should be kept in their own directory. This will allow, easy installation and direct user removal of unwanted or obsolete software, and all distros to unite under a single package format so that it is easier for developers to target Linux as a whole.

Sounds interesting, but do keep in mind that the file structure used by Ubuntu has been adopted by just about every other OS, too, because it works. Maybe it's not the most efficient thing in the world, but if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
br_
There's something about the project itself that I don't like, a phylosophical problem... that has slipped my mind

one huge thing is the insitence on FLOSS which means so much more work to get it usable out the box but that's slowly being made easier.

that is one MAJOR reason i dislike using ubuntu personally. i have over 4000 mp3s. i'm not about to convert them all to ogg.

simple reason: i have no need to be helped while installing things in linux, i don't need things looked after for me etc

and that's my other reason. it's TOO simple. you CAN'T do things the hard way when for me that's the good way for a lot of stuff.

those 2 things are really the only reasons why i dislike ubuntu, or rather just don't use it. i think the concept of it is great for linux n00bs, but being that i learned how to tweak my XF86Config* when i was 7 years old, i just prefer things like that sometimes.

*quick history lesson: back in the 90s before X.Org, we used XFree86 for a GUI layer. /etc/xorg.conf is X.Org's version of XF86Config. it shares the exact same syntax as XF86Config, if you're curious as to what i'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
that is one MAJOR reason i dislike using ubuntu personally. i have over 4000 mp3s. i'm not about to convert them all to ogg.
Heaven forbid you install MP3 codecs.

And, if you like tweaking config files, Ubuntu doesn't stop you. Play with /etc/X11/xorg.conf all you like. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
xithium
that is one MAJOR reason i dislike using ubuntu personally. i have over 4000 mp3s. i'm not about to convert them all to ogg.

Why should that stop you using Ubuntu? The default media player Totem uses Gstreamer which provides mp3 plugins, and every other media player available in the repos doesn't have MP3 playback reduced in any way.

That's rather different to a distro like Fedora, where MP3 support is actively removed from all Fedora's packages.

Ubuntu leaves access to the majority of media formats just an apt-get away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest

Because Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS make more sense to me than that Bunty Crap

Edited by Lemonzest
Link to post
Share on other sites
kyro
Because Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS make more sense to me that that Bunty Crap

there there. lets not get into name calling :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
rson451

too much is done for me.

its slow when compared side by side to arch on my same computer.

i <3 pacman+abs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
0l33l
too much is done for me.

its slow when compared side by side to arch on my same computer.

i <3 pacman+abs.

Couldn't agree more. I love arch :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
SoapyHamHocks
too much is done for me.

its slow when compared side by side to arch on my same computer.

i <3 pacman+abs.

Yah pretty much the same here. I love using abs and pacman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rson451

wow there are more archers here than i thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xithium
wow there are more archers here than i thought.

Yeah, I think its popularity has grown a fair bit recently. It's jumped from number 22 to number 18 on Distrowatch (however much credit you give to Distrowatch rankings), and it's being mentioned a bit more recently. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Iridium
The Unix directory hierarchy still makes way more sense than the unregulated crap in Windows. Also, these days, every *nix system has at least a volume manager and a filesystem that supports online expansion, so there's no excuse for crying about running out of diskspace in / or /usr.

Also, what is it with you reading impaired clownshoes that are obviously Windows users and posting about why they're not using Linux? The thread is about Linux users and why they did not chose Ubuntu.

I'm sure it makes heavy use of the LD_* environment variables. If you'd clutter up the filesystem with symlinks of what you're trying to avoid, there's no point in a newfangled hierarchy.

If it doesn't redirect the linker into all directions of the sky, then it probably won't work well with external precompiled packages.

Firstly i said that i use Gobo but yes i also love my XP to death. Secondly the symlinks are just in place because packages are not compiled for the gobo-hierarchy if they were the symlinks would disappear. Thirdly, and this may hurt somewhat, but the fsf and open source developers are trying to break ties with die hard Linux users who are trying to hold back development. They want to make the Linux desktop as simple and consequently as competitive as possible on the desktop. Trust me there are a lot of people trying Linux from the windows community because vista is not shaping up and im sure they will have some influence on the future of Linux. The developers of large distributions such as Ubuntu who are trying to make a profit will aim their distribution at windows users. The ntf3g implementation in Ubuntu 7.10 supports this theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
edbro
Not even Chuck Norris could unite all the distros.

Apt-get works better than any other package manager I've tried anyways.

I bet Jack Bauer could do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
David Scaife
<snip>

Thirdly, and this may hurt somewhat, but the fsf and open source developers are trying to break ties with die hard Linux users who are trying to hold back development. They want to make the Linux desktop as simple and consequently as competitive as possible on the desktop. Trust me there are a lot of people trying Linux from the windows community because vista is not shaping up and im sure they will have some influence on the future of Linux.

Where do you get your information? Unless you're talking about the the philosophical differences between GNOME and KDE, the open source developers generally *are* the "die hard Linux users". Nobody is trying to hold back development, although it would hardly be surprising if some disagreed with the idea of making it a Windows copycat (for lack of a better term). Then again, that's the beauty of open source; if someone wants to make Linux suitable for a typical user, they're free to try. That's generally where distributions (and the desktop environment projects) come in.

It seems that you need to remember that Ubuntu is not Linux. It is a distribution of Linux, so whatever its philosophy is, whatever its users say, will only affect Ubuntu. Maybe other *similar* distributions. Perhaps it will have an effect on projects like GNOME, which has a similar "dumb it down for the users" kind of philosophy, but it will not transform Linux as a whole from an enthusiast system into a shiny mainstream hide-everything-from-the-user operating system.

The developers of large distributions such as Ubuntu who are trying to make a profit will aim their distribution at windows users. The ntf3g implementation in Ubuntu 7.10 supports this theory.

That really wouldn't be a surprise, but NTFS-3g is not Ubuntu-specific. Pretty much any distribution with a package manager has it, and it could at least be compiled on the others, and not all of them are aiming for Windows users. It's more of a requirement for Ubuntu to make it available if it wants to succeed at all with its intended user base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
metal_dragen

Simple reason: Ubuntu wasn't around when I started experimenting with Linux.

I cut my teeth on Slackware back in the day. Moved on from there to trying Redhat (I think it was version 4), then Debian, and finally settled on Gentoo as my distro of choice.

I have tried several others (Arch, Mandrake, SuSE, Peanut, and even Ubuntu), but I still come back to the purple G. I <3 portage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1Frothy

*1. It's slower on the same hardware (P4 1.8GHz, AGP Graphics, 1.5Gb RAM, 2x20GB HDD) than Windows XP,

2. File system is non-forgiving, delete a file in Ubuntu - gone, forever, no hope of undelete,

3. Quality of programs / drivers included is generally average at best.

*My major reason for turning my back on Ubuntu.

I'm sorry to say Ubuntu has still got a long way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PegasusX

I've always used RHEL (and in some cases CentOS, which is basically the samething) on my servers and have never thought twice about it. Its stable, secure, and works great for me. I've seen no reason to switch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miuku.
2. File system is non-forgiving, delete a file in Ubuntu - gone, forever, no hope of undelete,

No, not really.

First of all you can undelete files in ext3 which I still assume is the default FS for Ubuntu and second of all if you're using a GUI, the stuff will go into trash where you can undelete them at will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vice

I use ubuntu a lot but there are issues. Not because of ubuntu but because of the windows apps I already own that won't run. So I can't switch my main system completely. Instead I run a 2nd ubuntu only machine so that I can enjoy it to its full extent while still maintaining my Windows rig for current gen games and other pieces of software that are Windows only. I know there is Wine but its not the same as just having a real windows machine for windows apps just like how running Mac OS X in VMWARE doesn't give a good representation of a Mac.

The new version of ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon 7.10 is really great I love everything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
red.

I don't use Ubuntu simply because Suse comes with more programs 'out of the box'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.