Number of Linux Distributions Surpasses Number of Users !!!!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
>Hadron
>Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great
>unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no
>time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.

I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but
not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.

For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it
wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was
absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.

It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian
stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it
came from, and was available at the time.

>Ubuntu made things more Human.

I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume
it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that
it is not so.

>The problem was that People (Debian Fan
>Geeks) had worked hard to get Debian working and where it is. And they
>were damned if they were going to RTFM for Aunty Roy and his ilk - e.g
>clueless idiots who just wanted to save money rather than buy into the
>"learn by doing" ethos of many Linux distros.

In the matter of support, I find Debian's online docs to be much more
professional, accurate, and applicable to the latest version than Ubuntu's
equivalents. The Ubuntu forums are inundated with mostly irrelevant fanboi
noise, and what little info is there is often inaccurate or misleading. For
example, if you search for how to have the OS boot into console mode and
automatically start up an app, you may find a reference to editing an inittab
file. So a gutsy gibbon enduser fires up his text editor, ready to apply the
needed changes to his inittab file. But there is no such file. Why? Because the
very poorly documented Upstart has replaced the normal linux bootup code in
later Ubuntu versions, and makes that file irrelevant. Yet, that's the answer
you get on Ubuntu's forums. There are other examples I can list as well, which
you'll find if you're willing to wade through the interminable amounts of
fanboi noise such as how everything associated with MS is horrible, and how
Ubuntu is perfect.

>You come across as competent but a tad elitist not necessarily a bad thing.

If it is "elitist" to say "Spare me the hype and deliver the goods, and if the
goods don't match the hype, I'm calling you on it", then so be it. I don't
think that's the least bit elitist. In fact, I think it's the opposite. It's
the essense of pragmatism. But it's your prerogative to see it otherwise.

>I disagree. The community in Debian are far less willing to hold
>hands. Some people need hand holding.

I'm perfectly fine with someone directing me to docs as long as those
accurately answer my question. I've found that the Ubuntu community offers no
more accurate answers, and in fact, you usually have to wade through an
annoying amount of fanboi rhetoric to even get to the wrong answer.
 
>netcat
>Shuttleworth has given Debian ample credit, and huge amounts of code
>filter back down to Debian from his 60 paid programmers and the rest of
>the Ubuntu developer community.

How "huge" is huge? Ubuntu got the codebase for an entire distro from Debian.
Ubuntu has been notoriously criticised for giving too little back downstream
compared to what they take.

>Debian is a technical distribution designed for technical uses and
>technical users. Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, etc., are specifically
>designed to be easy for new and non-technical users to install and
>administer. I would *never* hand a new non-technical user a Debian CD
>and expect him to be able to install and configure it himself.

I disagree that Debian is any less capable for new and non-technical users to
install and administer. If someone can install Ubuntu, then he can install
Debian. You _should_ hand that user a Debian CD because if he can install
Ubuntu, then you'll be surprised how easily he can install Debian in the same
situation (ie, same machine, with the same initial contents).
 
>Ignoramus15795
>While Ubuntu is easier for "average people" to use (until they hit
>snags, that is), there is nothing in Ubuntu that makes it less
>powerful or less available for advanced use, than any other debian
>based distro.

I'd agree, but then, by the same token, there is nothing in most other distros
that makes them less powerful or less available for _non-advanced_ use.

Therein lies the rub. The Ubuntu hype machine is stating otherwise.
 
On 2008-04-08, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>Ignoramus15795
>>While Ubuntu is easier for "average people" to use (until they hit
>>snags, that is), there is nothing in Ubuntu that makes it less
>>powerful or less available for advanced use, than any other debian
>>based distro.
>
> I'd agree, but then, by the same token, there is nothing in most other distros
> that makes them less powerful or less available for _non-advanced_ use.
>
> Therein lies the rub. The Ubuntu hype machine is stating otherwise.

So, then, maybe you can educate me a little. What is there in Ubuntu
that is not present in Debian?

Personally, after becoming dissatisfied with Fedora, I decided to
switch to Debian. It was my first choice, and it worked on one old
machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run
on the hardware that I had with other machines.

Then I tried ubuntu and saw that it was as good as debian, but more
modern and released regularly.

Hence my choice of ubuntu, I am working on standardizing everything on
ubuntu that I can lay my hands on.

So, let me know what you think are the diffs between debian and ubuntu
..
i
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:

> Therein lies the rub. The Ubuntu hype machine is stating otherwise.

"Moshe Goldfarb" (aka flatline---) is not part of the "Ubuntu hype
machine" -- he's a WinTroll trying to stir up dissension amongst Linux
users. This "my distribution is better than anyone elses" crap is just pure
stupid.

I don't use Ubuntu, but I appreciate the fact that many people have gotten
their start in Linux via Ubuntu. And I think Ubuntu is pretty clear about
their Debian roots. There are many distributions based on Debian -- and
they're not advertising that fact 24/7 either. Nor do Red Hat or Slackware
based distributions constantly mention their roots. It's just the way it
is. They're not hiding, it's just not that big of a deal.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:

> I disagree that Debian is any less capable for new and non-technical users
> to install and administer. If someone can install Ubuntu, then he can
> install Debian. You should hand that user a Debian CD because if he can
> install Ubuntu, then you'll be surprised how easily he can install Debian
> in the same situation (ie, same machine, with the same initial contents).

Yep. Not so a couple distributions back, but I had no trouble with Debian
the last time I tried it out. Nor did I have trouble with Slackware the
last time I tried it. Or... any distribution, actually. I do think I have a
little easier time than the average installer because I use older "trailing
edge" technology.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> Hadron
>> Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great
>> unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no
>> time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.
>
> I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but
> not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.
>
> For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it
> wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was
> absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.
>
> It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian
> stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it
> came from, and was available at the time.
>
>> Ubuntu made things more Human.
>
> I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume
> it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that
> it is not so.
>


I agree there. I just installed Debian on another machine and found the
install very simple and straight forward. Much more so than Ubuntu. And
Ubuntu ain't hard.
caver1
 
>Ignoramus15795
>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy who is
saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with many other
distros, including Debian.

>Debian worked on one old
>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run
>on the hardware that I had with other machines.

Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
in the newer versions.
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:02:28 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:


> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable
> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's
> hardly Bill Gates.

Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in
power broker circles for his investment capital company.

I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu and while he is
certainly no Bill Gates, things have to be put into perspective.

IOW compared to what the other distributions are getting in terms of money
verses the development costs.

>>Not that he is doing it for the money.
>
> I never implied that you implied that. But you've suggested a direct
> correlation between his money/connections and the press that Ubuntu gets, so
> the natural conclusion is money is being paid for good press. After all, Red
> Hat and Novell make way more money than Canonical, and yet they don't get the
> hype that Ubuntu gets.
>
> I still say it has nothing whatsoever to do with Shuttleworth's "money and
> connections", and everything to do with the fact that his distro was the first
> to urge fanbois to rabidly overhype the distro everywhere (and they happened to
> do that at the very moment that Linux finally had enough support in place to be
> considered as an alternate to Windows. May I add that this support was done
> entirely outside of the Ubuntu community. It was the kernel devs, gnome devs,
> debian devs, etc, that did that work). That trick worked once. It's not working
> quite as well the second time with PCLinuxOS because people have gotten wise to
> the hype that a "me too" distro (like Ubuntu) is better than other distros. It
> isn't.
>
> In conclusion, Ubuntu's success (relative to other distros) is _entirely hype_,
> which just happened to have the luck of happening at the most opportune moment
> in Linux's history. There are many other distros just as good (or better), but
> they don't get the press simply because they weren't overhyped by fanbois at
> that very moment in history. But that was then, and this is now, and the
> message needs to get out that Ubuntu is, and has always been, mostly hype. That
> doesn't mean it's a bad distro. It just means that it doesn't offer anything
> most other distros don't also offer, and in fact, in some ways offers less.
>
>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get
>>reviewed, press etc.
>
> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it
> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi
> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly
> opportune moment.
>
> It was PR. That doesn't speak anything toward the merits of the distro compared
> to other distros.
>
>>The older Linux stalwarts will be more satisfied with Debian.
>>The newer converts will gravitate to Ubuntu because Debian is too
>>confusing.
>
> How so? I found Debian every bit as easy to install and use as Ubuntu.
> Actually, I found Debian _easier_ to use because I needed to make some special
> customizations to my system, and I found accurate/helpful docs for Debian to do
> just that, whereas I found inaccurate info from the Ubuntu community (plus a
> _lot_ of irrelevant noise from fanbois to wade through), and never could get
> Ubuntu to do what I wanted. (It probably can, with proper docs, but why bother
> when Debian does it easier and quicker?)
>
>>There is nothing special about any of the 600+ different Linux distributions.
>>They all come down to a base Linux system.
>
> Indeed. So it's time for everyone to drop the hype about Ubuntu.
>
>>But PCLinuxOS, while better than Ubuntu IMHO, hasn't made the progress
>>Ubuntu has.
>
> That's only because of 2 reasons:
>
> 1) Most importantly, too many people know now that there are Linux distros
> where overzealous fanbois overhype their pet distro. Overhyping a distro isn't
> as effective nowadays. People have seen it before (from Ubuntu) and are jaded
> to it (for good reason. The overwhelming majority of distros are not much
> different).
>
> 2) It's now at least a year after Linux base (and GUI) support has been good
> enough that it can be seen as an alternative to Windows. The most opportune
> moment to overhype a distro is already past. Anyone trying to do it now is
> wasting their breath... unless they truly have something that no other distro
> has.
>
>>I attribute that at least in part to Shuttleworth.
>
> That's your prerogative to do so, but I just don't see convincing evidence to
> support that conclusion, and therefore disagree.
>
>>the community has to start somewhere.
>
> As I said, there's nothing wrong with starting at Ubuntu, just as long as you
> know that it's not any better than many other distros out there, and if there's
> anything you don't like about the distro and/or its community, you should not
> be the least bit hesitant to jump ship. In fact, you probably should keep your
> eye out for anything that looks like it may be better for you, because odds are
> good that there may be such a thing out there somewhere.
>
> That is the message that needs to get out there, but there is unfortunately
> still too many holdouts to the Ubuntu hype.
>
> Incidentally, I hope you don't get the impression that I'm "attacking" you. I'm
> not calling you "stupid" or a "troll" or whatever it is that too many people in
> this newsgroup seem to regard as standard protocol. But I don't agree with your
> assessment of Shuttleworth's influence, or how Ubuntu got to where it is today,
> and am not swayed from my own assessments. (On the other hand, I do agree with
> some points, such as the statement about distros being similiar due to using
> the base Linux system pretty much as is).

Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is
certainly a major one.
Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,
both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.
It also lends to it's credibility somewhat.

Is it the best?
No, I don't think so however Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and
getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.
That can only be a good thing for Linux.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:09:13 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>Ignoramus15795
>>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?
>
> I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy who is
> saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with many other
> distros, including Debian.
>
>>Debian worked on one old
>>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run
>>on the hardware that I had with other machines.
>
> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
> in the newer versions.

That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
based on.
In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:48:45 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:09:13 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
>>>Ignoramus15795
>>>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?
>>
>> I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy
>> who is saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with
>> many other distros, including Debian.
>>
>>>Debian worked on one old
>>>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run
>>>on the hardware that I had with other machines.
>>
>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed
>> Debian stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing
>> had no such problem. It's like the difference between installing on
>> older version of Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have
>> support for newer hardware in the newer versions.
>
> That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it
> is based on.
> In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
> install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

Its amazing what slopware can do ....



--
Rick
 
>> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable
>> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's
>> hardly Bill Gates.

>Moshe Goldfarb
>Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in
>power broker circles for his investment capital company.

I'm pretty well versed in the computer industry, and I had never heard of him
until Ubuntu. I suspect that's also true for most people in this industry.

>I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu

That was a relatively long time ago. People are starting to wonder how much
longer Canonical can go on as a company, being that it's obviously not even
making back that money, let alone being profitable. At some point, it either
has to become profitable, or turn into an expensive hobby.

If it was really the money being responsible for all the press Ubuntu gets,
then Fedora or SLED would be mentioned much more than Ubuntu, because that's
where the real money is with regard to Linux.

>>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get
>>>reviewed, press etc.

>> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it
>> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi
>> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly
>> opportune moment.

>Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is
>certainly a major one.
>Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,
>both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.

I certainly don't think he's hurting Ubuntu (although I think he's quite out of
touch with how the community around it is hurting it), but I simply do not
think he's at all responsible for why Ubuntu is the most overhyped Linux distro
ever to appear on the scene. I stand by my assessment that it's due entirely to
"unwarranted fanboi hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at
a particularly opportune moment in the development of linux".

>Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and
>getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.
>That can only be a good thing for Linux.

Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It didn't
have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing, and just as
good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other distros didn't have.
Things probably would have played out exactly the same if it had been Fedora or
Suse mentioned in virtually every linux article at that time, rather than
Ubuntu, for example.
 
>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian
>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such
>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of
>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware
>> in the newer versions.

>Moshe Goldfarb
>That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is
>based on.
>In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during
>install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros
update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release
schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may
support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another
doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro
will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For
example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that
Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than
PCLinuxOS has.

As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many
other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is
largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's
usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same
sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their
GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if
that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:36 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable
>>> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's
>>> hardly Bill Gates.
>
>>Moshe Goldfarb
>>Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in
>>power broker circles for his investment capital company.
>
> I'm pretty well versed in the computer industry, and I had never heard of him
> until Ubuntu. I suspect that's also true for most people in this industry.

I've been in the business for close to 30 years and I heard of him.
I didn't however realize he was connected with Linux in any way though.

>>I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu
>
> That was a relatively long time ago. People are starting to wonder how much
> longer Canonical can go on as a company, being that it's obviously not even
> making back that money, let alone being profitable. At some point, it either
> has to become profitable, or turn into an expensive hobby.

I suspect they will start selling support services at some point.
Low overhead and high profit.

> If it was really the money being responsible for all the press Ubuntu gets,
> then Fedora or SLED would be mentioned much more than Ubuntu, because that's
> where the real money is with regard to Linux.

Those companies also have very high overhead that Ubuntu does not.

>>>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get
>>>>reviewed, press etc.
>
>>> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it
>>> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi
>>> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly
>>> opportune moment.
>
>>Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is
>>certainly a major one.
>>Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,
>>both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.
>
> I certainly don't think he's hurting Ubuntu (although I think he's quite out of
> touch with how the community around it is hurting it), but I simply do not
> think he's at all responsible for why Ubuntu is the most overhyped Linux distro
> ever to appear on the scene. I stand by my assessment that it's due entirely to
> "unwarranted fanboi hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at
> a particularly opportune moment in the development of linux".

I disagree with *entirely*.
The fanboi phenome has certainly helped though, in a big way.

I just don't really get it WRT Ubuntu because I don't find it to be that
good.
It's ugly looking in it's default layout, it seems sluggish to me and the
configuration tools are a mixed bag.
Maybe it's just one of those things that the younger generation has hooked
into that the older folks just don't understand.
I dunno.

Personally as far as Linux fanbois and zealots are concerned, in the
overall scheme of things I do wonder if they do more harm to Linux than
good.
Someone who goes around preaching how great Linux is how he never has
problems and how Windows has all kinds of problems certainly looks like an
idiot and loses all credibility when average Joe tries Linux and hates it.





>>Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and
>>getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.
>>That can only be a good thing for Linux.
>
> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It didn't
> have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing, and just as
> good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other distros didn't have.
> Things probably would have played out exactly the same if it had been Fedora or
> Suse mentioned in virtually every linux article at that time, rather than
> Ubuntu, for example.

Well that's my point.
Had Shuttleworth, or any other person with money,connections decided to
back Mepis, I suspect Mepis would be in the position Ubuntu is in today.

Ubuntu certainly isn't the *best* Linux IMHO.



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:24:14 GMT, jellybean stonerfish wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:37:10 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect they will start selling support services at some point. Low
>> overhead and high profit.
>
> Haven't they always?
> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid

I stand corrected.
Thanks!

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:36 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It
> didn't have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing,
> and just as good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other
> distros didn't have. Things probably would have played out exactly the
> same if it had been Fedora or Suse mentioned in virtually every linux
> article at that time, rather than Ubuntu, for example.

Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press. There was a
three-year period there when SuSE filled every magazine (many of which
included a SuSE CD) and was predicted by many a Linux blogger to become
"THE Windows killer". However, Novell's plans don't include going
toe-to-toe against Microsoft SuSE only went so far and when it did what
Novell wanted, they slowed development and essentially switched to
maintenance mode. In achieving user-friendliness SuSE had also tied the
hands of more technical users, costing it the support of the geek crowd.

Fedora was the Linux-media's next darling. It was backed by a successful
Linux company, based on their successful commercial distribution,
appealed to the geek crowd, and though it wasn't entirely
consumer-friendly it showed terrific promise in that area. However, Red
Hat wasn't at all interested in the consumer market and wouldn't devote
the resources needed to whip Fedora into shape as a consumer OS. So,
consumers went elsewhere. That elsewhere was Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, MEPIS,
and other consumer-responsive distributions.
 
Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
>
>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>> comes to infrastructure).
>
> No, you've got it wrong.
> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
> Not that he is doing it for the money.

And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
his son's toy OS a good start?

Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.

--
These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>>> comes to infrastructure).
>>
>> No, you've got it wrong.
>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
>> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>
> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
> his son's toy OS a good start?

No.
His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
succeed.
Which he did.


> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.

Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:50:46 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and
>>>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think
>>>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with
>>>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,
>>>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a
>>>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it
>>>> comes to infrastructure).
>>> No, you've got it wrong.
>>> What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has
>>> HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.
>>> Not that he is doing it for the money.
>> And, probably, Linus' father used all his wealth and influence to give
>> his son's toy OS a good start?
>
> No.
> His father's wealth gave him a good education and the opportunity to
> succeed.
> Which he did.

Have you ever looked up what Linus' father's profession and status was?
Whether he was "wealthy" at all? Quite a lot of countries here in Europe
offer *everyone* the opportunity for a good education by giving the
not-so-well-off grants. So even the child of a garbage collector could
go to university.

Wikipedia claims that his father had been a communist who, usually, are
all but wealthy, if they do not belong to the ruling class, which is
unlikely in Finland.

>> Personally, I didn't even know the "astronaut" Mark Shuttleworth was
>> behind the Distribution that I installed on my notebook.
>
> Most of you Ubuntu fanbois seem rather ignorant.

Ah, resorting to insults, are you?

You may interpret this as ignorance, I interpret it as choosing
Ubuntu/Linux for its value rather than who stands behind it.

Most Linux users use Linux and OSS because of its value and sometimes
against pressure from outside to use another OS and toolset.

--
These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html
 
Back
Top