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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:

> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>Ignoramus6985
>>>An active release schedule means that new hardware will be
>>>supported. It is important.
>>
>> But it's the kernel developers who actively release linux. It's the gnome
>> developers who actively release gnome. It's the KDE developers who actively
>> release kde. Etc. It's not the Ubuntu developers. They simply package the
>> updates in their own distro.
>>
>> All distros have access to these sources, and unless a distro is not
>> being actively maintained any more, they all get these updates and
>> package them. The fact that, at any given moment, one distro may not
>> have as recent a version of a particular software as another distro
>> does is irrelevant, because tomorrow the shoe may be on the other
>> foot.
>
> Except when debian becomes over 3 years old, it does matter.
>
>> You have to look at what a distro has to offer which most other
>> distros do not and _cannot_. In that regard, Ubuntu really has
>> nothing that the others don't. That doesn't make it bad. It simply
>> means that it's overhyped given the amount of attention it gets, and
>> the amount of times that people falsely state it's the "easiest"
>> distro. It isn't. Many others are equally, or in some ways,
>> "easier".
>
> I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
> looking for, specifically
>
> 1) recent
> 2) well packaged
> 3) stable
> 4) Supports a lot of configurations
>
> i

Like HPT, I have a feeling you are not knowledgeable with regard to
Debian. It has 3 different mainstream suites all of which can be mixed
and matched through pinning to create a stable working distro.

It supports all 4 of your points above.

Jeff is quite correct when he says there is very, very little difference
(of consequence) between Debian Testing and Ubuntu.


--
<doogie> Thinking is dangerous. It leads to ideas.
-- Seen on #Debian
 
>Hadron
>Leading distros invariably patch the core
>kernel sources with their distro specifics. So "packaging" is a bit of a
>misnomer.

???
 
Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

>>Hadron
>>Leading distros invariably patch the core
>>kernel sources with their distro specifics. So "packaging" is a bit of a
>>misnomer.
>
> ???

Why did you snip?

I was pointing out that its not just "packaging" of the core
kernel. Different distros DO have distro specific sources and
"packaging" makes it sound like its just a trivial rebranding.
 
On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>Ignoramus22864
>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>looking for, specifically
>>
>>1) recent
>>2) well packaged
>>3) stable
>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>
> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>
> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
> friendly distro" as much as it is?

I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.

I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
config files during system updates.

At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
machine).

Really liked debian.

Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with linux.

After more looking found that ubuntu is like debian, only newer.

Started using ubuntu everywhere and could not be happier.

> I believe you'll find that many other distros are every bit as
> "easy" and user friendly as Ubuntu. You can't gauge that by one day,
> because all distros have different release schedules, but you should
> be able to see that the amount of hype surrounding Ubuntu is
> unwarranted, and therefore could only have happened as the result of
> overzealous promotion (by what most people refer to as "fanbois").

I have not found anything and, given that ubuntu does everything I
want, I am not likely to look.

> If you haven't tried another distro, you probably should. There are
> enough of us that feel there are better distros than Ubuntu such
> that it's quite possible you'd find yourself to be such a person
> too. So Ubuntu does what you need. If I wanted to, I could probably
> get Ubuntu to do what I need too. But it's just as possible that
> there could be something better out there for you, just like there
> was for me.

I think that it is factually not true.

i
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:39:06 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>>jg
>>> 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.
>
>>netcat
>>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.
>
> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop.

Funny, it was ready for mine.

> In fact, even such things as the rate of broadband use (not widespread
> enough before Ubuntu came on the scene) made a difference since Linux
> software was typically gotten via the net. Ubuntu just happened to be
> the new kid on the block right at the most opportune moment (ie,
> broadband use becoming widespread, the Linux kernel finally getting
> wide enough driver support to be viable for most desktops, gnome and
> kde finally being viable enough for most users, etc), and it was all
> the hype by Ubuntu fanbois that got Ubuntu (an undeserved amount of)
> attention (which is even less deserved today). It wasn't better than
> the other distros. They all had the benefits of the same base
> software, and installer improvements. Ubuntu was simply hyped to
> sound better than the other distros, even though it wasn't, and
> certainly isn't today.

All the other distributions happened to be around for those same
developments, and many had the advantage of maturity and an
already-established userbase. Your whole argument boils down to a claim
that the *only* reason Ubuntu is successful is because of "fanboism" and
"hype". That, however, doesn't jibe with all the Ubuntu users who tried
a variety of distributions before finally settling on Ubuntu.
 
Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:

> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>looking for, specifically
>>>
>>>1) recent
>>>2) well packaged
>>>3) stable
>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>>
>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>
>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>
> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>
> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
> config files during system updates.
>
> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
> machine).
>
> Really liked debian.
>
> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with
> linux.

This is ridiculous. Did you not think to ask someone?

Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:39:06 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
>>>>jg
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>netcat
>>>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.
>>
>> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop.
>
> Funny, it was ready for mine.

Is netcat William Poaster?

>
>> In fact, even such things as the rate of broadband use (not widespread
>> enough before Ubuntu came on the scene) made a difference since Linux
>> software was typically gotten via the net. Ubuntu just happened to be
>> the new kid on the block right at the most opportune moment (ie,
>> broadband use becoming widespread, the Linux kernel finally getting
>> wide enough driver support to be viable for most desktops, gnome and
>> kde finally being viable enough for most users, etc), and it was all
>> the hype by Ubuntu fanbois that got Ubuntu (an undeserved amount of)
>> attention (which is even less deserved today). It wasn't better than
>> the other distros. They all had the benefits of the same base
>> software, and installer improvements. Ubuntu was simply hyped to
>> sound better than the other distros, even though it wasn't, and
>> certainly isn't today.
>
> All the other distributions happened to be around for those same
> developments, and many had the advantage of maturity and an
> already-established userbase. Your whole argument boils down to a claim
> that the *only* reason Ubuntu is successful is because of "fanboism" and
> "hype". That, however, doesn't jibe with all the Ubuntu users who tried
> a variety of distributions before finally settling on Ubuntu.


--
XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
aren't all taken in with the MS hype.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:56:30 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>
>
>> Funny, it was ready for mine.
>
> Is netcat William Poaster?

I was thinking the same thing.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Hadron wrote:
> Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:
>
>>>> jg
>>>> 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.
>>> netcat
>>> Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.
>> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop. In fact,
>> even such
>
> Agreed. And a point I have frequently made. Unfortunately there are a
> hard core here who, and I'm not kidding, reckon Linux was ready for the
> desktop 10 years ago. Seriously. In COLA they claim that.


Who here care what A claims?
caver1
 
On 2008-04-09, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>>looking for, specifically
>>>>
>>>>1) recent
>>>>2) well packaged
>>>>3) stable
>>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>>>
>>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>>
>>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>>
>> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
>> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
>> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>>
>> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
>> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
>> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
>> config files during system updates.
>>
>> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
>> machine).
>>
>> Really liked debian.
>>
>> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
>> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with
>> linux.
>
> This is ridiculous. Did you not think to ask someone?
>
> Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.

I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I did not think at the
time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at
stake.

i
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:30:53 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>Ignoramus22864
>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>looking for, specifically
>>
>>1) recent
>>2) well packaged
>>3) stable
>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>
> Which is what you can get from many other distros.

Sure, Debian can be made to look just like Ubuntu. The difference is
that it would take a new user with no linux experience months to years
of screaming hair-pulling effort to accomplish that, which would never
actually happen because he'd burn the damn Debian CD's and install
Windows first. So, to Ignoramus' list I'd add:

5) Consumer-friendly and Desktop-Ready out of the box.
 
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:06:35 -0500, Ignoramus22864 wrote:

> On 2008-04-09, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>>>looking for, specifically
>>>>>
>>>>>1) recent
>>>>>2) well packaged
>>>>>3) stable
>>>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>>>>
>>>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>>>
>>>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>>>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>>>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>>>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>>>
>>> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
>>> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
>>> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>>>
>>> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
>>> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
>>> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
>>> config files during system updates.
>>>
>>> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
>>> machine).
>>>
>>> Really liked debian.
>>>
>>> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
>>> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with
>>> linux.
>>
>> This is ridiculous. Did you not think to ask someone?
>>
>> Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.
>
> I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I did not think at the
> time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at
> stake.
>
> i

I have to admit that when I first tried Debian a few years ago I too was
confused by the different branches and ended up installing a system that
was clearly way out of date.

I asked in one of the Debian groups and got clued in to how things work
with that distribution and all was fine.

Debian is a good solid distribution that you can make into whatever you
like be it older more stable applications or newer cutting edge stuff.
It's really up to you what your needs are.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
 
Ignoramus22864 wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus22864
>>> I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>> looking for, specifically
>>>
>>> 1) recent
>>> 2) well packaged
>>> 3) stable
>>> 4) Supports a lot of configurations
>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>
>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>
> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>
> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
> config files during system updates.
>
> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
> machine).
>
> Really liked debian.
>
> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with linux.
>
> After more looking found that ubuntu is like debian, only newer.
>
> Started using ubuntu everywhere and could not be happier.
>



Don't get me wrong as I like Ubuntu but the last update for Debian was
in Feb of this year.
I have loaded it on another machine that I have and so far have seen
enough difference to say one is better than the other. But then again I
haven't had Debian up and running long enough either.
caver1
 
caver1 wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>> Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> jg
>>>>> 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.
>>>> netcat
>>>> Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.
>>> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop. In fact,
>>> even such
>>
>> Agreed. And a point I have frequently made. Unfortunately there are a
>> hard core here who, and I'm not kidding, reckon Linux was ready for the
>> desktop 10 years ago. Seriously. In COLA they claim that.
>
>
> Who here care what A claims?
> caver1


That was suppose to be COLA
caver1
 
On 2008-04-09, Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:06:35 -0500, Ignoramus22864 wrote:
>
>> On 2008-04-09, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>>>>looking for, specifically
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) recent
>>>>>>2) well packaged
>>>>>>3) stable
>>>>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>>>>
>>>>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>>>>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>>>>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>>>>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>>>>
>>>> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
>>>> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
>>>> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>>>>
>>>> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
>>>> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
>>>> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
>>>> config files during system updates.
>>>>
>>>> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
>>>> machine).
>>>>
>>>> Really liked debian.
>>>>
>>>> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
>>>> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with
>>>> linux.
>>>
>>> This is ridiculous. Did you not think to ask someone?
>>>
>>> Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.
>>
>> I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I did not think at the
>> time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at
>> stake.
>>
>> i
>
> I have to admit that when I first tried Debian a few years ago I too was
> confused by the different branches and ended up installing a system that
> was clearly way out of date.
>
> I asked in one of the Debian groups and got clued in to how things work
> with that distribution and all was fine.
>
> Debian is a good solid distribution that you can make into whatever you
> like be it older more stable applications or newer cutting edge stuff.
> It's really up to you what your needs are.
>
>

What I want is, newer stable stuff. Not cutting edge, but not obsolete
either. Anyway, if Debian testing provides exactly that, then I would
have no reason to say that it is inferior to Ubuntu.

i
 
Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:

> On 2008-04-09, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2008-04-09, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:
>>>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>>>looking for, specifically
>>>>>
>>>>>1) recent
>>>>>2) well packaged
>>>>>3) stable
>>>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations
>>>>
>>>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.
>>>>
>>>> What other distros have you tried, other than Debian 3 years ago, to do a fair
>>>> comparison of how Ubuntu stacks up to them _at the same point in time_, and
>>>> therefore whether Ubuntu really does deserve to be hyped as "the most user
>>>> friendly distro" as much as it is?
>>>
>>> I used Redhat and Fedora for years. I started using Linux since
>>> 1995. I don't remember what if anything I used prior to redhat, could
>>> have been Slackware. Then I used Redhat and later Fedora.
>>>
>>> I finally decided to look for something new approximately 5 months ago
>>> or so after many problems with Fedora 8 that I thought were due to
>>> poor testing. Plus I became tired of Fedora messing up my essential
>>> config files during system updates.
>>>
>>> At that point I started asking questions and tried debian (on an old
>>> machine).
>>>
>>> Really liked debian.
>>>
>>> Then I realized that it is 3 years old, with no new release in sight,
>>> and does not support new hardware that I had to have set up with
>>> linux.
>>
>> This is ridiculous. Did you not think to ask someone?
>>
>> Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.
>
> I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I did not think at the
> time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at
> stake.
>
> i

Thats a bit of old rhetoric. The fact is that what is viewed as "stable"
in Ubuntu is in the distro/repository known as "testing" in
Debian. Google it up.

"stable" does not mean it works - it means nothing much changes except
for security updates. HPT made this mistake too and ended up looking a
bit of a clot.

The Ubuntu team dont wave a magic wand and make all this stuff work you
know. They take it, try it and if it "works for them" its probably in.

If you get a good testing/stable mix using debian pinning you can then
lock it down and have it work for years.

Don't listen to the fanboyz.
 
Ignoramus22864 <ignoramus22864@NOSPAM.22864.invalid> writes:
>
> What I want is, newer stable stuff. Not cutting edge, but not obsolete
> either. Anyway, if Debian testing provides exactly that, then I would
> have no reason to say that it is inferior to Ubuntu.
>
> i

See here for some interesting pointers:

http://wiki.debian.org/AptPinning
 
>Ignoramus22864
>I did not think at the
>time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at
>stake.

You do know that Ubuntu is based upon Debian testing, right?
 
>>>Fedora and SuSE did indeed have their turn in the press.

>> Yes, but _before_ Linux was ready to take on the desktop.

>Funny, it was ready for mine.

That's irrelevant. I'm not talking about the history of only your desktop.

>> In fact, even such things as the rate of broadband use (not widespread
>> enough before Ubuntu came on the scene) made a difference since Linux
>> software was typically gotten via the net. Ubuntu just happened to be
>> the new kid on the block right at the most opportune moment (ie,
>> broadband use becoming widespread, the Linux kernel finally getting
>> wide enough driver support to be viable for most desktops, gnome and
>> kde finally being viable enough for most users, etc), and it was all
>> the hype by Ubuntu fanbois that got Ubuntu (an undeserved amount of)
>> attention (which is even less deserved today).

>All the other distributions happened to be around for those same
>developments, and many had the advantage of maturity and an
>already-established userbase.

Yes, they had an already-established userbase... of professionals, not kids who
just happened to download a whole linux distro now that they finally got their
broadband access, or got one of those free CDROMs, and whipped themselves up
into a frenzy of hype that, even to this day, makes them cited as the largest
collection of fanbois in the larger linux community.

Go over to distrowatch and ask "What 2 distros are notorious for having the
most vocal fanbois?". That answer, combined with what was happening with the
state of linux support at the time that Ubuntu was "the new kid on the block"
will tell you why Ubuntu got hyped so much (and still benefits largely from
that hype, rather than its merits wrt other distros).

Saying that Ubuntu got to be the most popular distro simply because it's the
best linux distro, is like saying that Windows is the best OS because its even
more popular. This totally overlooks the marketing (which in the case of Ubuntu
was done by overzealous fanbois, rather than paid salesmen) and PR.

>That, however, doesn't jibe with all the Ubuntu users who tried
>a variety of distributions before finally settling on Ubuntu.

Some linux users distro-hop. I've tried Ubuntu too. That doesn't mean that I
stuck with it. Nevertheless, the larger portion of Ubuntu users are people for
whom it has been their first and only distro. Why? Because they may have been
talked into using linux by an Ubuntu fanboi, or they happen to read some
article about linux which invariably (and falsely) depicted Ubuntu as being
"friendly" to new users (moreso than all the other distros out there) -- as if
all other distros are "unfriendly". It was due to hype and PR.

It's not that Ubuntu was bad for them, or that it doesn't "do what they need"
(ie, there has been no need for them to try anything else). But it was hype and
PR that "made the sale" rather than any other measurable merit over most other
linux distros.

Just today, I read a Linux article where the person described Debian as "geek
friendly" and Ubuntu as "user friendly". This is false hype. It isn't the case.
I know because I've tried them both, and they are relatively equally "friendly"
in the way that they install and are used. (Actually, Debian was "friendlier"
to me in particular, because I had a special customization I needed to make. I
found it easier to do this under Debian than Ubuntu, thanks in large part to
the more informative Debian community).
 
>>>Ignoramus22864
>>>I don't know if it overhyped, but in Ubuntu I found all that I was
>>>looking for, specifically

>>>1) recent
>>>2) well packaged
>>>3) stable
>>>4) Supports a lot of configurations

>> Which is what you can get from many other distros.

>Sure, Debian can be made to look just like Ubuntu.

To paraphrase a somewhat flippant reply you gave to one of my earlier posts:

"Funny, Debian looked just like Ubuntu for me".

There was my gnome desktop with the same menus, most of the same apps, the same
package manager, gnome panels, etc. (I did notice that one of the menu items
under Administration was moved elsewhere. And there was a Home icon on the
desktop. Those were the most notable differences in the "looks". Oh yeah, it
didn't have a brown background. Not sure if it takes "months to years of
screaming hair-pulling effort" to change it, because I didn't want the brown
background anyway).

>The difference is
>that it would take a new user with no linux experience months to years
>of screaming hair-pulling effort to accomplish that

"Funny, it didn't take me months to years of screaming hair-pulling effort to
accomplish that".

>Consumer-friendly

Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers. Nothing Ubuntu
has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of consumer-friendly advances.

>Desktop-Ready out of the box.

"Funny, my Debian booted up to a desktop that was ready to be used, out of the
box".
 
Back
Top