>>>>>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.
>I know that. Just pointing out that Debian's LiveCD is graphical and
>from comments elsewhere I surmise that it doesn't have a pointy-clicky
>graphical installer yet.
It does. But not in the CD that you downloaded/installed, nor the one I used.
You have to get the DVD version.
>Because unskilled users may have to install
>Linux by themselves, a simplified GUI installer with good user guidance
>is one of the major requirements of a consumer OS.
The Debian text based installer (well, curses actually) is plenty easy. I'm
confident that any enduser who could install Linux from Ubuntu's installer
could handle the text-based installer as easily (assuming he didn't want to use
the DVD version).
>>>>>>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.
>No, what I'm showing is that you're being hypocritical by accusing Ubuntu
>of something that Debian and other distro's also do.
What exactly did I "accuse" Ubuntu (i.e. I assume you mean Ubuntu devs) of
doing that I supposedly claim that Debian and other distros' devs don't do? I
gather from the context of the above quotes, what you're attempting to do (and
yet not doing so directly, perhaps because you're getting confused over what
exactly is, and has, been said), is suggest that I've said only Ubuntu derives
code from outside sources. That of course is a totally inaccurate
misrepresentation of my posts, and you know it, because I've been _stressing_
all along that all distros get their kernel, GUIs, and apps from the same
places. (That's one of the big reasons why Ubuntu can't really be more
user-friendly than the other distros. These are the things that really make an
OS usable for endusers).
You're the one who is suggesting that somehow Ubuntu has these magical sources
that contain important, user-friendly stuff that somehow none of the other
distros have. Perhaps you're arguing with yourself (rather than me) here?
>And it does not at
>all follow from what I said that using some of the same pieces makes all
>distro's equally easy for a new non-technical user to install,
>administer, and use.
Some? Other than Upstart (which is primarily to speed up the boot process, not
improve user-friendliness), which specific "pieces" does Ubuntu have access to,
which no other distros do, and what is the extent of their impact upon
user-friendliness? Really. What specifically, other than a large amount of
hype?
>> 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).
>Red Hat is a server/corporate distribution
But Fedora is not. Neither are many of the other distros which you relegate to
"not as good for a newbie as Ubuntu", unfairly and inexplicably so.
>and not interested in the consumer desktop. Novell only
>took SuSE far enough to sell its own networking and corporate-support
>services and then stopped there
OpenSuse is not SLED.
Furthermore, there are many other Linux distros out there than those two.
>>>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.
>Credit for listening to non-technical consumers and giving them what
>they wanted, which Debian has so far failed to do.
In what ways?
>Debian at least seems
>to be trying now and may by only a year from a real consumer
>distribution. Judging on past history I doubt it would have lifted a
>finger for consumer-level users if Ubuntu hadn't started stealing its
>users away. So if Debian does come out with a good consumer
>distribution, you can thank the likes of Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, etc.
No. We can thank the likes of the kernel, Gnome, KDE, and apps devs, and the
Debian devs that package all this stuff up so that Ubuntu devs can get it from
Debian testing and create an Ubuntu release.
>> 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.
>*ALL* Linux distributions are built on the work of others
Glad you've finally realized what I've been telling you all along. Furthermore,
the specific "work of others" includes the kernel, GUIs, apps, and in the case
of apt-based distros, the Debian package manager. These are the things that
make an OS usable and "friendly" to an enduser, and all distros have them.
>and you are
>once again ignoring the copious amounts of code Ubuntu has given back to
>the open-source community.
Such as? If it's so copious, how about listing the most important ones and
detailing exactly how, and to what extent, they impact "user friendliness", so
we can deduce if it's substantial, or really mostly hype.
>>>> 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).
>He also pays them to clean up Debian Testing's problems
I include that under "testing". Lots of people test Debian testing -- primarily
the people using Debian, and fix bugs. That's why it's called "testing".
Not a Canonical exclusive here.
>to implement features requested by Ubuntu users
Most distros implement features requested by users of the distro. Not a
Canonical exclusive here either.
>to assemble the various OSS pieces
>into a distro that consumers will find easy to use
Most distros assemble the various OSS pieces into a distro that their users
will find easy to use.
Definitely not a Canonical exclusive here.
>and to provide continuing maintenance for up to 3 years.
Lots of distros provide continuing maintenance. In fact, Debian has provided
even more than 3 years maintenance on some of its releases.
Once again, not a Canonical exclusive here.
The problem you're having is that you're really, really short on specifics
(well, really totally devoid of specifics), because the specifics would show
that the vast bulk of what impacts user-friendliness and usability come from
those elements that all distros have access to, and all of them include today.
And that whatever Ubuntu has over other distros is going to boil down to a
little tweaking of those elements (and no more tweaking than is done in all of
the other distros -- including the tweaking in Debian testing from which Ubuntu
gains, and that's forgotten by Ubuntu fanbois), and lots and lots and lots of
hype.
>>>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.
>Utter nonsense, to put it nicely. The developer forums are mostly tech
>talk and the help areas of ubunutofurms.org are moderated to keep posts
>relevant to the solution being presented.
I've found the moderation at ubuntuforums.org to be decidedly amateurish and
ineffective. There remains an inordinate amount of factually incorrect
information, and advocacy noise, and a relatively minor amount of useful,
informed discussion. Ubuntu's forums are mostly a vehicle for fanboi activism.
These are _not_ serious forums. If you want to read a number of serious
discussions then you've got to go somewhere like... debian's mailing list.
Frankly, if I want accurate and informed information, I'll go to Gentoo or Red
Hat sources. ubuntuforums.org is one of the last places I'd go for anything
substantial.
>> As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:
>> Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know
>> 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.
>Shuttleworth announced at Ubuntu's birth that he intended to create a
>well-funded, self-sustaining consumer distribution by setting up a
>company (Canonical)
I don't have access to Canonical's financial records, but it sure as hell
doesn't look like they're making any money selling Ubuntu to desktop users. I
don't see any sign of a "self-sustaining consumer distribution".
>and eventually selling support for a server edition.
This is obviously where they're going to have to make money. And it remains to
be seen if they can do it, especially since Canonical depends upon Debian,
whereas Red Hat and Novell don't depend upon any other distro. The latter two
directly utilize the various "linux pieces" (and in fact, have important
developers upon those projects) to put together their distros, have their own
package managers, and do not depend upon anyone else's repos.
>>>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.
>Yes you have. You've claimed that it was built on the work of others
Of course it was built upon the work of others. You admit that yourself.
>and that it was taking all the credit for thier work
Yes. It has been given undo credit for the work of others. It's
"user-friendliness" is primarily the work of kernel devs, GUI (i. e.,
Gnome/KDE) devs, app devs, and the Debian package manager. This work comes from
outside of Canonical. Furthermore, all other distros have access to these
sources, and use them.
That's why Ubuntu has been overhyped and overrated.
>while ignoring what it's given back.
The extent to which I've "ignored what it's given back" is my counter-argument
that it hasn't given back enough to justify the hype. You're the one who
proposed this topic in response to my assertations about Ubuntu hype, and the
failure to give enough credit to other distros and other sources. Therefore,
it's fair to ask what specifically Ubuntu has given back that makes it
deserving of being mentioned in just about every Linux article as "the easiest
distro to use". My contention is "too little to justify all that hype, which is
the work of fanbois".
>> 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.
>Someone could just as easily claim that Debian would be at the bottom of
>distrowatch's popularity list if not for the hype and fanboism of its
>own developers and users.
Oh that sounds like fun. Go over to Distrowatch and suggest that, "Unlike
Ubuntu, Debian would be at the bottom of distrowatch's popularity list if not
for the hype and fanboism of its own developers and users". I would just love
to read the responses to that.
Seriously. Do it. I really, really think you _need_ to hear the amount, and
content, of those responses to appreciate how folks in the know realize how
much Ubuntu is _the_ most overhyped linux distro ever.
>However, I think most people would want to see
>some evidence to back up that insult.
Try the above experiment for yourself, and you'll see.
>>>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.
>That's not surprising, since I never argued any such thing.
>I've quite frequently emphasized that there are other consumer-friendly
>distributions in addition to Ubuntu, and even named some. So, why are
>you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said?
You mean, like I never said "Ubuntu is rubbish" contrary to your erroneous
claim otherwise?
I'm glad you've finally realized that Ubuntu is no more user-friendly than many
other distros. That's what I've been telling you all along.
And that's why, whenever anyone suggests otherwise, I'm sure you'll now agree
with me that this is hype.
>> In fact, it's entirely possible that they can get a better experience
>> elsewhere. I did.
>I have explicitly emphasized, again and again and again, that I'm
>talking about new non-technical users.
So am I.
>> >>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.
>Obviously due to PCLinuxOS fanboism and hype.
Yes, the PCLinuxOS folks have tried to do what the Ubuntu folks did previously.
But it's not working as well this time because now people realize that there
are relatively little difference between most linux distros and that for one to
claim to be especially suitable for a very large group of people (i.e. Ubuntu's
supposed "user-friendly" pitch) is really hype. I've explained this very thing
in my previous posts. You should read those if you're going to allege what I've
said in those posts. (There are more pertinent details to my argument about
this, which I've omitted here. There's also the matter of timeline).
>And of course the PCLinuxOS developers don't deserve any credit
When they say that PCLinuxOS is the most user-friendly distro, and that
everyone new to Linux should start with it, that's hype. If they suggest that
PCLinuxOS does lots of things that most other distros don't do, that's hype. If
they suggest that they've got something special, that other distros don't,
which makes them especially suited for a large group of people, that's hype.
And that's what Ubuntu fanbois did.
>the gnome and KDE and other applications developers are the ones who
>made them #1.
The KDE devs are responsible for a very, very, very large part of PCLinuxOS's
"user-friendliness". It wouldn't be user-friendly _at all_ without KDE. (They
just recently started shipping a Gnome version. But it really isn't associated
with that distro). But there are other things that also largely contribute to
its popularity/usability, such as the kernel, and apps, and package manager
(again, from Red Hat), plus its Control Center (from Mandriva). So yes, there
is a lot of credit that needs to be doled out to others outside the distro's
devs, and given that, the distro should _not_ be hyped (because it isn't really
the source for what is being hyped).
>> 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.
>Ubuntu *ISN'T* hyped in "nearly every article about Linux". PCLinuxOS,
>SuSE or OpenSuSE, Mandriva, and MEPIS are also often recommended to new
>& non-technical users by the Linux media.
How often is "often"? Just today I ran across yet another article purporting to
be a "guide for someone wanting to get into Linux for the first time". It was
just a facade for yet another "how to install Ubuntu" article.
>>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.
>So you admit that your claims are based on merely anecdotal experience
>that isn't necessarily applicable to everyone else?
Which claims? My claim that the distros all use the same kernel, GUIs, apps,
and in the case of apt-based distros, the Debian package manager, and therefore
can't have major differences in usability and user-friendliness since these are
the elements that really determine usability and user-friendliness? Care to
suggest that Ubuntu has some kernel, GUIs, apps, or package manager that the
other distros don't have, and explain exactly how, and how much, these figure
into user-friendliness?
>> 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.
>Every distro has its fanbois, Debian included.
What do fanbois have to do with a newbie given any one of the distros
in distrowatch's top 10, and if that user could install and use any one
of them, he could also install and use most all of them? To whom are you
responding? Your own strawman?
>By the way, you might want to know that your X-No-Archive is set to
>"yes" so your valuable insights aren't being archived on google groups:
Perhaps if you spent less time reading, and concerning yourself with, message
headers, and more time reading the actual content of messages, you wouldn't
make false accusations such as your erroneous claim that I said "Ubuntu is
rubbish", nor be arguing with your own strawmen.