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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moshe Goldfarb
  • Start date Start date
Hadron wrote:
> Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> What value did you attribute to it over others?

First and foremost: it's open. There are no barriers that stop me to
find out how things work, at all levels.
It supports some older hardware I have, e.g. my rather ancient SCSI scanner.
Some may regard this as a disadvantage, but: most things (desktop
managers, packet managers, even entire distributions) come in several
flavors so I can choose which one suits my needs or my way of working best.
Lastly it comes with all the tools that I need.

> (Serious question btw).

No problem with that.

--
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
 
Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What value did you attribute to it over others?
>
> First and foremost: it's open. There are no barriers that stop me to
> find out how things work, at all levels.
> It supports some older hardware I have, e.g. my rather ancient SCSI scanner.
> Some may regard this as a disadvantage, but: most things (desktop
> managers, packet managers, even entire distributions) come in several
> flavors so I can choose which one suits my needs or my way of working
> best.

What needs? You mean the ability to install and update? Nothing magical
or maverick there.

> Lastly it comes with all the tools that I need.

What tools? Which ones does Ubuntu provide which meets your needs and
helps you work best? Try to be specific here since I'm seriously asking
about why Ubuntu gets a higher value on your scale.

>
>> (Serious question btw).
>
> No problem with that.

Your answer was applicable to almost all Linux "me toos". I meant what
value for Ubuntu over the others.


--
Bwahahahahahahahah - Anyone else think that this announcement from the MS
marketing machine was anything other than a last ditch attempt to try and
foster *some* interest in XP ?
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
 
Hadron wrote:
> Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> What value did you attribute to it over others?
>> First and foremost: it's open. There are no barriers that stop me to
>> find out how things work, at all levels.
>> It supports some older hardware I have, e.g. my rather ancient SCSI scanner.
>> Some may regard this as a disadvantage, but: most things (desktop
>> managers, packet managers, even entire distributions) come in several
>> flavors so I can choose which one suits my needs or my way of working
>> best.
>
> What needs? You mean the ability to install and update? Nothing magical
> or maverick there.

"My needs" are an open system where I can develop software and, if
needed, even modify the operating system kernel.

>> Lastly it comes with all the tools that I need.
>
> What tools? Which ones does Ubuntu provide which meets your needs and
> helps you work best? Try to be specific here since I'm seriously asking
> about why Ubuntu gets a higher value on your scale.

It's not especially Ubuntu but Linux distributions in general which come
with compilers (C, C++), interpreters (Perl, Python), servers
(Webserver, FTP Server, NFS Server), that I need.

>>> (Serious question btw).
>> No problem with that.
>
> Your answer was applicable to almost all Linux "me toos". I meant what
> value for Ubuntu over the others.

Ah, OK. No, nothing special.
I used to have SuSE Linux Professional 9.x on a number of systems (three
desktops, one laptop) but I was getting uneasy about the age. Originally
I wanted an RPM based distribution, as at work we support Red Hat and
Novell/SuSE, but neither Fedora nor OpenSuSE appealed to me (just a
feeling, nothing that I could put into words or numbers). When our son
installed Ubuntu on his notebook, I thought I'd give it a try, but I
wanted KDE, and since then I'm stuck with kubuntu. But I agree, it could
just as well have been another one.

There is one thing, however, that I *think* sets Ubuntu off from the
others: the enormous size of the repositories and the ease of accessing
them. But, as far as I know, this also applies to Debian.

If Novell had continued to offer SuSE Linux Professional, I wouldn't
have switched.

Fact is, I can only use a single dsitribution at a time, and at the
moment of decision the choice fell to Kubuntu.
--
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 Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:39:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:


> Actually COLA is merely a game. Moog normally only hangs out in the
> Ubuntu help group and is a good helper there to many. Unfotunately a lot
> of the COLA gang have migrated there too with their "works for me", "it
> was ready 10 years ago" and "you're clearly a windows or mac user" type
> insults.

Having COLA Linux nuts in any reasonable group is like bringing your own
ants to the church picnic.
They just destroy the place.



> Well, I know one single update munged my dbus and I stuck with it for
> ages trying to manually fix it before reinstalling. This has never
> happened in debian. Ditto for their inconsistent handling with fstab and
> UUIDs.

I've had X go nuts after an update, kernel problems,applications disappear
from menus and so forth.

I've found that it is best to upgrade in stages a little at a time rather
than saying "do it".


> One of the things that people will hail is something as tricky as
> manually installing codecs versus Ubuntu doing it for you. This is
> nice. But nice enough to stay to make Ubuntu so much better than Debian?
> No. Debian has come on a lot recently - but credit where credit is
> due. I think a LOT of that is to do with Ubuntu pushing their
> hand. There were too many "works for me" dinosaurs in Debian too who
> couldn't believe that someone wouldn't be able to edit their own
> xorg.conf .....

It's a mixed bag....
Having the OS do it all for you is easier except when it doesn't work and
then you might be on your own for a bit.

Doing it all yourself is easy as long as the instructions are EASILY FOUND.
IMHO all the extra stuff, CODECS, Nvidia driver etc should have full
instructions in the readme file and the readme file should pop up at the
first boot and for every boot there after until the user checks a box
saying something like "don't show me this again".
This way the instructions are right in front of the user.



--
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 16:13:31 -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.
>
> To paraphrase a somewhat flippant reply you gave to one of my earlier
> posts:
>
> "Funny, Debian looked just like Ubuntu for me".

I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of stability,
and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I downloaded was
this week's Debian Testing.

It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation, I was
surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now. However, the
similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some of my usual
software so I could give it a run for its money - and Synaptic wasn't in
any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no Synaptic anywhere on
the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't even
in the default repositories. Since I'm pretending to be a new and
unskilled user, I looked for a GUI tool to add a repository. If it's
there, it's well-hidden. So, I was forced to edit sources.list manually.

One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some
commented-out repositories in sources.list so the user need only
uncomment them and do an apt-get update. Nope. I had to search the
Internet, which of course also requires enough knowledge of the Debian
repository system to know what you're searching for.

As I used Debian, I kept running into this kind of thing. There simply
is no THOUGHT for the new/non-technical user. Not even something as
simple as putting a commented-out repository line in sources.list to
ease his life while he's doing things that should never be expected of
him in the first place.

Ubuntu's developers think about these things. Synaptic is installed by
default and there's a user-friendly wrapper around sources.list that
makes it easy to select repositories by checking boxes. Sources.list
contains commented repository lines that can be enabled from the
wrapper. Each repository is accompanied by a clear description of what
it's about that includes appropriate warnings about legal or security
risks. Perhaps Debian has this very same tool in the repositories, but
before he can benefit from it the non-technical user would have to know
that it exists and what the package name is.

> 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).

But not Synaptic, and to install it someone who has never used Linux
before would have a lot to figure out.

>>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".

I specified "consumer-friendly" - in other words, designed for people
with no technical skill who have never used Linux before and aren't so
sure they wouldn't be happier with Windows anyway. Do you fall into that
category?

>>Consumer-friendly
>
> Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
> "consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all
three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging
systems. Debian's big contribution is offering the building blocks from
which other distro's can be built. Apt/Synaptic is only one of those.

> Nothing Ubuntu has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of
> consumer-friendly advances.

Ubuntu's big contribution is consumer-friendliness.

>>Desktop-Ready out of the box.
>
> "Funny, my Debian booted up to a desktop that was ready to be used, out
> of the box".

But not ready to be used by a new/non-technical user.
 
* netcat peremptorily fired off this memo:

> I started to install some of my usual
> software so I could give it a run for its money - and Synaptic wasn't in
> any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no Synaptic anywhere on
> the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't even
> in the default repositories. Since I'm pretending to be a new and
> unskilled user, I looked for a GUI tool to add a repository. If it's
> there, it's well-hidden. So, I was forced to edit sources.list manually.

The Debian installer gives you some options for installing software.
That's how I found out about aptitude, after years of using dselect to
pick software.

I never heard of synaptic until a couple of friends started using
Ubuntu. I've used synaptic a little, but I prefer aptitude.

It's all in what you are used to.

As for editing sources.list, there's no need to, especially if you did a
net install.

> But not ready to be used by a new/non-technical user.

Sure it is. You just had your own expectations to deal with. In my
opinion.

--
No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed.
-- Bill Gates, http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:13:31 -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.
>>
>> To paraphrase a somewhat flippant reply you gave to one of my earlier
>> posts:
>>
>> "Funny, Debian looked just like Ubuntu for me".
>
> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of stability,
> and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I downloaded was
> this week's Debian Testing.
>
> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.

> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
> easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation, I was
> surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now. However, the
> similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some of my usual
> software so I could give it a run for its money - and Synaptic wasn't in
> any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no Synaptic anywhere on
> the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't
> even

apt-get install Synaptic

failed for me too.

apt-get install synaptic

didn't though.

Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.


> in the default repositories. Since I'm pretending to be a new and
> unskilled user, I looked for a GUI tool to add a repository. If it's
> there, it's well-hidden. So, I was forced to edit sources.list manually.
>
> One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some
> commented-out repositories in sources.list so the user need only
> uncomment them and do an apt-get update. Nope. I had to search the
> Internet, which of course also requires enough knowledge of the Debian
> repository system to know what you're searching for.
>
> As I used Debian, I kept running into this kind of thing. There simply
> is no THOUGHT for the new/non-technical user. Not even something as
> simple as putting a commented-out repository line in sources.list to
> ease his life while he's doing things that should never be expected of
> him in the first place.
>
> Ubuntu's developers think about these things. Synaptic is installed by
> default and there's a user-friendly wrapper around sources.list that
> makes it easy to select repositories by checking boxes. Sources.list

As there is debian.

> contains commented repository lines that can be enabled from the
> wrapper. Each repository is accompanied by a clear description of what
> it's about that includes appropriate warnings about legal or security
> risks. Perhaps Debian has this very same tool in the repositories, but
> before he can benefit from it the non-technical user would have to know
> that it exists and what the package name is.
 
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:29:39 -0400, Linonut wrote:

> * netcat peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> I started to install some of my usual software so I could give it a run
>> for its money - and Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus. I snooped
>> around and there's no Synaptic anywhere on the system. Then I tried to
>> apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't even in the default
>> repositories. Since I'm pretending to be a new and unskilled user, I
>> looked for a GUI tool to add a repository. If it's there, it's
>> well-hidden. So, I was forced to edit sources.list manually.
>
> The Debian installer gives you some options for installing software.
> That's how I found out about aptitude, after years of using dselect to
> pick software.
>
> I never heard of synaptic until a couple of friends started using
> Ubuntu. I've used synaptic a little, but I prefer aptitude.

As a somewhat-technical user who has been using Linux for many years, I
was comfortable enough editing repositories and using apt to install
other tools, including Synaptic. Consumer-level users require more
out-of-the-box simplicity.

> It's all in what you are used to.
>
> As for editing sources.list, there's no need to, especially if you did a
> net install.

I did it the way a consumer would likely do it - from a CD.

>
>> But not ready to be used by a new/non-technical user.
>
> Sure it is. You just had your own expectations to deal with. In my
> opinion.

Not my expectations, those of the many non-technical friends and family
members I've converted to Linux over the years. It was all I could do
just to get each to TRY Linux. Not a one of them would have tolerated
Debian. They could probably use Debian after I'd installed it for them
and tweaked a lot of things, but then it would be something very like
Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, etc., albeit with more work on my part.
 
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>

>>
>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of
>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I
>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.
>>
>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>
> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.

Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and
it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to
try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is compatible,
and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's install by
copying the system straight across from the CD. That's significantly
faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager during
installation.

Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still
be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at
least another six months.

>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer
>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation, I
>> was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now. However,
>> the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some of my usual
>> software so I could give it a run for its money - and Synaptic wasn't
>> in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no Synaptic anywhere
>> on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't
>> even
>
> apt-get install Synaptic
>
> failed for me too.
>
> apt-get install synaptic
>
> didn't though.

It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.

> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.

I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried to
apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal name
of the application.

>> Ubuntu's developers think about these things. Synaptic is installed by
>> default and there's a user-friendly wrapper around sources.list that
>> makes it easy to select repositories by checking boxes. Sources.list
>
> As there is debian.

Not until after you install Synaptic, and even then you can't add the
various distro repositories just by clicking on checkboxes as you can in
Ubuntu. It would be easy to do, Debian just hasn't bothered.
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>
>>>
>>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
>>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
>>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of
>>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I
>>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.
>>>
>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>
>> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.
>
> Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and
> it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to
> try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is compatible,
> and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's install by
> copying the system straight across from the CD. That's significantly
> faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager during
> installation.
>
> Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still
> be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at
> least another six months.
>
>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer
>>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation, I
>>> was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now. However,
>>> the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some of my usual
>>> software so I could give it a run for its money - and Synaptic wasn't
>>> in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no Synaptic anywhere
>>> on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and was told it wasn't
>>> even
>>
>> apt-get install Synaptic
>>
>> failed for me too.
>>
>> apt-get install synaptic
>>
>> didn't though.
>
> It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.
>
>> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.
>
> I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried to
> apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal name
> of the application.


LOL. Did you not notice the case?
 
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:48:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
>>>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
>>>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of
>>>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I
>>>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.
>>>>
>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>>
>>> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.
>>
>> Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and
>> it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to
>> try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is
>> compatible, and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's
>> install by copying the system straight across from the CD. That's
>> significantly faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager
>> during installation.
>>
>> Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still
>> be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at
>> least another six months.
>>
>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer
>>>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation,
>>>> I was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now.
>>>> However, the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some
>>>> of my usual software so I could give it a run for its money - and
>>>> Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no
>>>> Synaptic anywhere on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and
>>>> was told it wasn't even
>>>
>>> apt-get install Synaptic
>>>
>>> failed for me too.
>>>
>>> apt-get install synaptic
>>>
>>> didn't though.
>>
>> It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.
>>
>>> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.
>>
>> I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried
>> to apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal
>> name of the application.
>
>
> LOL. Did you not notice the case?

LOL. Your lack of familiarity with Linux culture is showing. But then,
we already know what a faker you are.
 
netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:48:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest
>>>>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is
>>>>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of
>>>>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I
>>>>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>>>
>>>> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.
>>>
>>> Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and
>>> it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to
>>> try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is
>>> compatible, and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's
>>> install by copying the system straight across from the CD. That's
>>> significantly faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager
>>> during installation.
>>>
>>> Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still
>>> be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at
>>> least another six months.
>>>
>>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer
>>>>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation,
>>>>> I was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now.
>>>>> However, the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some
>>>>> of my usual software so I could give it a run for its money - and
>>>>> Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no
>>>>> Synaptic anywhere on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and
>>>>> was told it wasn't even
>>>>
>>>> apt-get install Synaptic
>>>>
>>>> failed for me too.
>>>>
>>>> apt-get install synaptic
>>>>
>>>> didn't though.
>>>
>>> It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.
>>>
>>>> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.
>>>
>>> I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried
>>> to apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal
>>> name of the application.
>>
>>
>> LOL. Did you not notice the case?
>
> LOL. Your lack of familiarity with Linux culture is showing. But then,
> we already know what a faker you are.
>

So that's you totally lost then.

It's nothing to do with quotes.
 
>netcat
>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

I believe that the LiveCD is separate from the installable version.

>Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus.

It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that hasn't
had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at that). That's
how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

>One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some
>commented-out repositories in sources.list

Well, I just used Synaptic, and whatever repositories were already setup for
it.

>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all
>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging
>systems.

But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was written by
the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a package manager,
unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers. Ubuntu devs simply took
the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it (taking all that credit for
making Linux "user friendly").

And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of this
user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers, and simply
repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software too.

>> Nothing Ubuntu has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of
>> consumer-friendly advances.

>Ubuntu's big contribution is consumer-friendliness.

No, Ubuntu's "big contribution" is taking a snapshot of Debian testing,
tweaking any big unresolved issues with that particular snapshot, and then
adding a lot of hype about how Canonical makes "user friendliness" possible.
No, it's the debian, Gnome, KDE, kernel, etc, developers who do all that, and
these folks "work" for all the other distros too.

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

>But not ready to be used by a new/non-technical user.

Sure it was. Your big gripe is not finding synaptic, but I found it when I
installed Debian. (But it had moved to another menu).
 
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:42:43 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>netcat
>>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
>>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.
>
> I believe that the LiveCD is separate from the installable version.

With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer. However, for
some situations you have to fall back to the "alternate" CD which uses
Debian's text-based installer.

>>Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus.
>
> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that
> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at
> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is
built on testing.

>>One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some
>>commented-out repositories in sources.list
>
> Well, I just used Synaptic, and whatever repositories were already setup
> for it.

I work as much at the command line as in the GUI and know how to find an
application whether it's in the menus or not. Synaptic wasn't there.

>>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
>>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.
>
>>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all
>>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.
>
> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was
> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a
> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.
> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

As if BSD, Gentoo, Red Hat, and Debian don't also stand on the shoulders
of others.

> (taking all that credit for making Linux "user friendly").

Since Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu
was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,
I would say a little credit is well-deserved.

> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of
> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,
> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software
> too.

Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff
to sit around picking their noses. If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer
forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on
turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that
Canonical can stake its business reputation on. In contrast to your
attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu
developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

>>> Nothing Ubuntu has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of
>>> consumer-friendly advances.
>
>>Ubuntu's big contribution is consumer-friendliness.
>
> No, Ubuntu's "big contribution" is taking a snapshot of Debian testing,
> tweaking any big unresolved issues with that particular snapshot, and
> then adding a lot of hype about how Canonical makes "user friendliness"
> possible.

Yet again, I chose Ubuntu over Debian after trying both and finding
Debian to be lacking in consumer friendliness whereas Ubuntu was all
about non-technical users. Several others in this thread have related
similar experiences. Everyone knows that Ubuntu is built on Debian so if
you ask around, you'll find that many Ubuntu users have tried Debian out
of curiosity but found it too difficult and quickly returned to
Ubuntu. You can't explain that away by denying the differences or making
up nasty excuses about "fanboism" and "hype".

> No, it's the debian, Gnome, KDE, kernel, etc, developers who
> do all that, and these folks "work" for all the other distros too.

Since Shuttelworth is "First Patron of KDE" thanks to a large donation,
I doubt that KDE minds.
 
>>>netcat
>>>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
>>>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

>> I believe that the LiveCD is separate from the installable version.

>With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer.

I know that. I've installed Ubuntu a number of times. Just noting that Debian
has a LiveCD if that's what you want.

>>>Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus.

>> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that
>> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at
>> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

>As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is
>built on testing.

So did I. I found Synaptic, but it may have been something that was in the
testing repositories at that time.

>>>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
>>>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>>>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all
>>>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.

>> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was
>> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a
>> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.
>> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

>As if BSD, Gentoo, Red Hat, and Debian don't also stand on the shoulders
>of others.

You're proving my point again that what Ubuntu offers over the other distros is
mostly hype and PR. Yes, all the distros avail themselves of the same desktops
(ie, Gnome, Xfce, KDE, and the plethora of window managers), the same kernel,
and most all of the same apps. These things are all developed by people who
aren't necessarily associated with any distro (except that Red Hat and Novell
do tend to contribute a lot of code. If what you're implying is that Ubuntu
receives a higher percentage of press because of contributions Canonical has
made to Linux "usability" and "friendliness", then your reasoning falls down
based upon the fact that Red Hat and Novell have contributed more to projects
that truly have made Linux more usable and friendly, such as Gnome, and yet
don't get the hype that Ubuntu gets).

>Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu
>was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,
>I would say a little credit is well-deserved.

Credit for hype and PR, yes. But not credit for the usability and "user
friendliness" of Linux. That credit goes to the software made by others, which
Canonical repackages, including the kernel, Gnome, apps, and even Debian's
package manager and the bulk of Debian's repositories.

>> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of
>> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,
>> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software
>> too.

>Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff
>to sit around picking their noses.

He pays them to collect and repackage the code of myriads of open source
developers, just like all other distros do. And of course, testing (which
certainly isn't an Ubuntu exclusive).

>If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer
>forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on
>turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that
>Canonical can stake its business reputation on.

I have read Ubuntu's developer forums. It's mostly useless noise by Ubuntu
fanbois. I find Canonical's forums to be particularly uninformative.

As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:
Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know -- that
it needs to "stake its business reputation" on server support, since that's
where the real money is wrt Linux. Hence, Canonical's recent focus upon
servers. The desktop stuff has proven to be no money maker at all.

>In contrast to your
>attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu
>developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

I haven't portrayed Ubuntu as a "parasite". I've simply portrayed it as a
vastly overrated and overhyped distro, which is not any more "usable" or
"friendly" than most other Linux distros. I've also indicated that I think it
has a counterproductive fanboi element that is predominently responsible for
the distro being overrated and overhyped, and that this element has the
annoying tendency to assign credit to Ubuntu/Canonical for Linux's increasing
suitability for mainstream users, when it actually has been the work of many,
many other open source developers, particularly the kernel folks (e.g.
supporting new hardware), and desktop developers (e.g. Gnome and KDE). As far
as I'm concerned, that's taking credit for someone else's work.

>I chose Ubuntu over Debian after trying both and finding
>Debian to be lacking in consumer friendliness whereas Ubuntu was all
>about non-technical users.

That's your prerogative. But I don't find your arguments at all convincing that
non-technical users would be at all disadvantaged at trying many other distros
rather than Ubuntu. In fact, it's entirely possible that they can get a better
experience elsewhere. I did.

>Several others in this thread have related similar experiences.

There are "several others" who use the many other distros out there, and have
their own testimonies too. If you want to base what is most "usable" and
"newbie friendly" purely upon user testimony, it should be noted that
Distrowatch has listed PCLinuxOS as the #1 distro in its page rankings.
Frankly, that doesn't prove to me that it should therefore be hyped, in nearly
every article about Linux, and by fanbois, as _the_ distro for any newbie to go
to first. But that's because I know that the differences between distros is
relatively minor (because they all use the same codebases), transitory (as
different distros have different release schedules), and arguments otherwise
are typically based upon a given person's anecdotal experience (which doesn't
necessarily make it applicable to someone else), as your argument is anecdotal.

Frankly, I would have no problem handing a newbie any one of the distros in
distrowatch's top 10, and if that user could install and use any one of them, I
expect he could also install and use most all of them. And it's entirely
possible that one (or more) of them may ultimately be more useful to him than
Ubuntu, depending upon what he wants/needs. Anyone who suggests otherwise (wrt
Ubuntu) is, as far as I'm concerned, guilty of engaging in hype. And yet,
that's precisely what Ubuntu fanbois have done.
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>> netcat
>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD
>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and
>>>> easy enough that a Windows user could manage.
>
>>> I believe that the LiveCD is separate from the installable version.
>
>> With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer.
>
> I know that. I've installed Ubuntu a number of times. Just noting that Debian
> has a LiveCD if that's what you want.
>
>>>> Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus.
>
>>> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that
>>> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at
>>> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.
>
>> As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is
>> built on testing.
>
> So did I. I found Synaptic, but it may have been something that was in the
> testing repositories at that time.
>
>>>>> Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux
>>>>> "consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.
>
>>>> BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all
>>>> three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.
>
>>> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was
>>> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a
>>> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.
>>> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it
>
>> As if BSD, Gentoo, Red Hat, and Debian don't also stand on the shoulders
>> of others.
>
> You're proving my point again that what Ubuntu offers over the other distros is
> mostly hype and PR. Yes, all the distros avail themselves of the same desktops
> (ie, Gnome, Xfce, KDE, and the plethora of window managers), the same kernel,
> and most all of the same apps. These things are all developed by people who
> aren't necessarily associated with any distro (except that Red Hat and Novell
> do tend to contribute a lot of code. If what you're implying is that Ubuntu
> receives a higher percentage of press because of contributions Canonical has
> made to Linux "usability" and "friendliness", then your reasoning falls down
> based upon the fact that Red Hat and Novell have contributed more to projects
> that truly have made Linux more usable and friendly, such as Gnome, and yet
> don't get the hype that Ubuntu gets).
>
>> Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu
>> was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,
>> I would say a little credit is well-deserved.
>
> Credit for hype and PR, yes. But not credit for the usability and "user
> friendliness" of Linux. That credit goes to the software made by others, which
> Canonical repackages, including the kernel, Gnome, apps, and even Debian's
> package manager and the bulk of Debian's repositories.
>
>>> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of
>>> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,
>>> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software
>>> too.
>
>> Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff
>> to sit around picking their noses.
>
> He pays them to collect and repackage the code of myriads of open source
> developers, just like all other distros do. And of course, testing (which
> certainly isn't an Ubuntu exclusive).
>
>> If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer
>> forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on
>> turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that
>> Canonical can stake its business reputation on.
>
> I have read Ubuntu's developer forums. It's mostly useless noise by Ubuntu
> fanbois. I find Canonical's forums to be particularly uninformative.
>
> As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:
> Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know -- that
> it needs to "stake its business reputation" on server support, since that's
> where the real money is wrt Linux. Hence, Canonical's recent focus upon
> servers. The desktop stuff has proven to be no money maker at all.
>
>> In contrast to your
>> attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu
>> developers generate is given back to the open-source community.
>
> I haven't portrayed Ubuntu as a "parasite". I've simply portrayed it as a
> vastly overrated and overhyped distro, which is not any more "usable" or
> "friendly" than most other Linux distros. I've also indicated that I think it
> has a counterproductive fanboi element that is predominently responsible for
> the distro being overrated and overhyped, and that this element has the
> annoying tendency to assign credit to Ubuntu/Canonical for Linux's increasing
> suitability for mainstream users, when it actually has been the work of many,
> many other open source developers, particularly the kernel folks (e.g.
> supporting new hardware), and desktop developers (e.g. Gnome and KDE). As far
> as I'm concerned, that's taking credit for someone else's work.
>


If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why
do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at
the looks of it at quite a margin.
http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
caver1
 
>caver1
>If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why
>do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at
>the looks of it at quite a margin.
> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You
should know better than that.

This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which
conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the
least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a
survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include
information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each
server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that
would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your
contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing
to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far
too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,
and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user
friendliness over many other distros.

I stand by my assessment.
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> caver1
>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why
>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at
>> the looks of it at quite a margin.
>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
>
> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You
> should know better than that.
>
> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which
> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the
> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a
> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include
> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each
> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that
> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.
>
> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your
> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing
> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far
> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,
> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user
> friendliness over many other distros.
>
> I stand by my assessment.




So I am not to believe some one who publishes their findings, so that
others may check them out, but I am to believe you who is? so where is
your questionnaire? Where is your research?
caver1
 
>caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>

>Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>> caver1
>>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why
>>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at
>>> the looks of it at quite a margin.
>>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
>>
>> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You
>> should know better than that.
>>
>> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which
>> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the
>> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a
>> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include
>> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each
>> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that
>> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

>> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your
>> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing
>> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far
>> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,
>> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user
>> friendliness over many other distros.

>So I am not to believe some one who publishes their findings

I strongly suggest you do a search for the keywords "Laura DiDio SCO Linux"
before you continue to endorse this particular source. Otherwise, it could
prove embarrassing for you.

>so that others may check them out

I checked them out and cited (above) the problems I have with this "survey".

>but I am to believe you who is? so where is
>your questionnaire? Where is your research?

My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that Ubuntu
is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to Ubuntu fanbois?
I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only saying how I see things
after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus other distros. (Nevertheless,
there are obviously people who agree with me as evidenced by the sheer number
of people who have _not_ chosen Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about
"Ubuntu fanbois", and who have publically noted that other distros offer as
much, and sometimes more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these
people with very little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's
fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.
 
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>
>
>> Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>> caver1
>>>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why
>>>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at
>>>> the looks of it at quite a margin.
>>>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html
>>> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You
>>> should know better than that.
>>>
>>> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which
>>> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the
>>> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a
>>> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include
>>> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each
>>> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that
>>> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.
>
>>> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your
>>> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing
>>> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far
>>> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,
>>> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user
>>> friendliness over many other distros.
>
>> So I am not to believe some one who publishes their findings
>
> I strongly suggest you do a search for the keywords "Laura DiDio SCO Linux"
> before you continue to endorse this particular source. Otherwise, it could
> prove embarrassing for you.
>
>> so that others may check them out
>
> I checked them out and cited (above) the problems I have with this "survey".
>
>> but I am to believe you who is? so where is
>> your questionnaire? Where is your research?
>
> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that Ubuntu
> is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to Ubuntu fanbois?
> I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only saying how I see things
> after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus other distros. (Nevertheless,
> there are obviously people who agree with me as evidenced by the sheer number
> of people who have _not_ chosen Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about
> "Ubuntu fanbois", and who have publically noted that other distros offer as
> much, and sometimes more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these
> people with very little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's
> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.



Yup. jus wha I thunk. A person full of words that says nuttin.
caver1
 
Back
Top