>Erik Funkenbusch

>Shame them into going away

 

I'm not interested in shaming them. I'm content with people simply not

overhyping them, nor supporting them. If more people knew that Ubuntu, and

especially its "community infrastructure", is vastly overrated (which is the

exact opposite of what message they're getting currently from the vast majority

of Linux related outlets), and that it's no better than a number of other

distros (and in some cases, worse -- I personally chose Debian over Ubuntu),

then that's enough of a message to get out. I want to tell people it's so, and

why I believe it's so. Let them hear that message and see if they don't find it

to be true themselves.

>Shame them into actually doing something innovative and worth creating a

>while new distro for.

 

It doesn't work that way. For example, if you post something on Canonical's

forums, that something about Ubuntu is not the greatest thing since sliced

bread -- no matter how reasoned nor detailed you explain your conclusions, the

fanbois who totally dominate those forums will see to it that equally fanatical

moderators ban you. Ubuntu doesn't get better as a result of criticism. It

simply censors the criticism and ups the hype.

 

It's important that people realize that things are definitely no better in

Ubuntu-land than with any other distro, and if someone tells you otherwise,

it's probably hype. I'm happy to explain exactly why I think that's so, and I

fully trust my ability to get my points across convincingly despite the fanatic

reactions of fanbois, nor the threat of censorship or personal attacks.

 

Now, I'm not saying Ubuntu is crap, and that the community is totally useless.

I'm just saying that Ubuntu offers nothing that many other distros offer, and

its community is absolutely no better than other communities (and in fact, I

personally think it's worse due to the proliferation of fanbois. If you go to

distrowatch, search the comments to the weekly newsletters for the word

"fanboi", the names of two particular distros will pop up overwhelmingly. One

of those distros is Ubuntu, and there's a good reason for that. It didn't just

happen for no reason).

>The thing is, Ubuntu is a marketing movement, not a technology one.

 

Definitely. Ubuntu is all talk. The overwhelming work of making it happen was

done by Debian. It's just that a lot of fanboi elements started hyping Ubuntu

until people now falsely believe that it, and its community, are better than

the majority of other distros, and that Ubuntu itself is "Linux". In fact,

Ubuntu itself is a "me too" distro based upon Debian, with a "fan base" that

has usurped the work of the original, and hyped it as their own.

>Concentric is very good convincing the low-medium technical people that

>it's something special.

 

You mean "Canonical"? Honestly, I like Shuttleworth. He seems like a

particularly well-spoken guy, and obviously understands how to sell something.

But frankly, I don't think he has any idea of the extent of hype, and

ultimately bad-will, is being generated by that community (for example, the

people who run, and post to, the Canonical forums, and who have caused the word

"fanboi" to be so closely associated with Ubuntu), and how these people have so

hyped the distro to the point that they have effectively usurped the work of

others (such as Debian) as their own. When people start to think that Ubuntu is

Linux, then that effectively usurps the work of many people, and frankly, the

Ubuntu devs have done relatively little (I do mean very little) compared to the

folks who made/maintain the kernel, Gnome, and the entire distro of Debian

(upon whose shoulders Ubuntu stands). The Ubuntu community has done even less

than its devs. Overall, I think they've been counterproductive.

 

I'm content to let people know about this, and frankly, don't care if anyone

associated with Ubuntu takes it to heart and actually fixes what I see as the

bad state of Ubuntu beneath the hype.

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

>>Erik Funkenbusch

>>Shame them into going away

>

> I'm not interested in shaming them. I'm content with people simply not

> overhyping them, nor supporting them. If more people knew that Ubuntu, and

> especially its "community infrastructure", is vastly overrated (which is the

> exact opposite of what message they're getting currently from the vast majority

> of Linux related outlets), and that it's no better than a number of other

> distros (and in some cases, worse -- I personally chose Debian over Ubuntu),

> then that's enough of a message to get out. I want to tell people it's so, and

> why I believe it's so. Let them hear that message and see if they don't find it

> to be true themselves.

 

What they find and what they tout are two different things. You will

never convince the majority in COLA there is even a problem with

sound. Really. I guarantee it "all works for them". It is why some of us

"play" in COLA. Your wise words are falling on deaf ears with the

"advocates". Their reaction would be "if you are too stupid to get it to

work then go to Windoze".

>

>>Shame them into actually doing something innovative and worth creating a

>>while new distro for.

>

> It doesn't work that way. For example, if you post something on Canonical's

> forums, that something about Ubuntu is not the greatest thing since sliced

> bread -- no matter how reasoned nor detailed you explain your conclusions, the

> fanbois who totally dominate those forums will see to it that equally fanatical

> moderators ban you. Ubuntu doesn't get better as a result of criticism. It

> simply censors the criticism and ups the hype.

 

trust me - their forums are a haven of common sense compared to COLA

and, more recently with the arrival of COLA types, the Ubuntu usenet

group.

>

> It's important that people realize that things are definitely no better in

> Ubuntu-land than with any other distro, and if someone tells you otherwise,

> it's probably hype. I'm happy to explain exactly why I think that's

> so, and I

 

I disagree. I find the Ubuntu groups much more helpful than Debian. Why?

Becuase there are more noobs tripping and there is much more likely to

be a similar case to your own and hence a solution.

> fully trust my ability to get my points across convincingly despite the fanatic

> reactions of fanbois, nor the threat of censorship or personal attacks.

>

> Now, I'm not saying Ubuntu is crap, and that the community is totally useless.

> I'm just saying that Ubuntu offers nothing that many other distros offer, and

> its community is absolutely no better than other communities (and in fact, I

> personally think it's worse due to the proliferation of fanbois. If you go to

> distrowatch, search the comments to the weekly newsletters for the word

> "fanboi", the names of two particular distros will pop up overwhelmingly. One

> of those distros is Ubuntu, and there's a good reason for that. It didn't just

> happen for no reason).

 

I have to disagree. Ubuntu is a torch bearer. Although I must admit to

moving to Debian since i didn't like some of the Ubuntu hacks going into

place.

>

>>The thing is, Ubuntu is a marketing movement, not a technology one.

>

> Definitely. Ubuntu is all talk. The overwhelming work of making it happen was

> done by Debian. It's just that a lot of fanboi elements started hyping Ubuntu

> until people now falsely believe that it, and its community, are better than

> the majority of other distros, and that Ubuntu itself is "Linux". In fact,

> Ubuntu itself is a "me too" distro based upon Debian, with a "fan base" that

> has usurped the work of the original, and hyped it as their own.

 

No need to labour the point Jeff :-

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:09:24 +1000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>

>> Some of us are willing to take a more critical view of the situation, and

>> openly air that criticism. I'm outright calling Ubuntu overhyped, and that

>> it really offers little more than you can get from the majority of other

>> distros out there. I'm saying this because I think it's unfair,

>> unwarranted, and disingenous for people to hype Ubuntu so much, when many,

>> many other distros are at least as good. And that goes doubly for the

>> Ubuntu community. I think that a number of other distros have better

>> communities.

>>

>

> I agree.

>

> I believe it's a fashion thing. Ubuntu is simply the flavour of the moment.

>

> For a supportive community and a plethora of documentation, you can't go

> past the Gentoo community. There are cookbooks for nearly anything you can

> imagine. Help is plentiful and friendly.

 

It's money.

It's connections.

It's organization, at least compared to most Linux's.

 

THAT is why Ubuntu is catching on.

 

You guys just don't get the fact that money and influence run the show,

whether or not you like it.

 

Shuttleworth's name lends credibility to Linux and he happened to pick

Ubuntu.

Do you think all those mainstream press reviews (both good and bad) just

*happened* to Ubuntu?

Of course not.

Shuttleworth's connections have helped Linux tremendously.

 

Had he picked PCLinuxOS (and he should have), that would be the

distribution people were fawning over.

 

And BTW I think this is a good thing for Linux.

My kids tell me that their friends use Ubuntu, teachers have at least heard

of Ubuntu and so forth.

 

Something is certainly afloat with this distribution, and for Linux it's a

good thing.

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

>Moshe Goldfarb

>It's money.

>It's connections.

>It's organization, at least compared to most Linux's.

>THAT is why Ubuntu is catching on.

>You guys just don't get the fact that money and influence run the show,

>whether or not you like it.

 

You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and

connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think

that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with

misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,

incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a

real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it

comes to infrastructure).

 

But it's not the non-Linux media that is hyping Ubuntu. It's the linux-oriented

folks. Are you saying that they're being bought off by Canonical? (Possible.

The company is trying to make money, and not doing nearly as well at that as

Red Hat and Novell, and probably even Mandriva. Maybe they're trying some

strong-arm tactics to rectify the situation). What you're implying is something

quite damning of these folks' commitment to openness. You're suggesting

something quite nefarious and underhanded. After all, I've not seen any of

these people openly acknowledge that they're getting paid, or coerced, each

time they specifically mention Ubuntu.

>Shuttleworth's name lends credibility to Linux and he happened to pick

>Ubuntu.

 

Actually, he picked Debian. Then, he got a few devs to make another "me too"

deriviative of Debian, and called it Ubuntu. Then, he got a snowballing group

of overzealous fanbois to overhype it as if Ubuntu is Linux (and imply that the

Ubuntu folks are responsible for everything that goes into that distro), and

conveniently fail to give credit and support to the Debian folks.

>Do you think all those mainstream press reviews (both good and bad) just

>*happened* to Ubuntu?

 

No, it was overhyped by fanbois, as anyone who has been following Linux for

awhile will attest. If you don't believe me, go to a place that isn't

controlled by Ubuntu moderators, and where users of other distros hang out,

such as Distrowatch, and ask the question:

 

"What two distros are most commonly associated with overzealous fanbois?"

 

I'm confident what the answer will be. There is a reason for _that_ too.

 

And now, what is needed is for people to counter the hype, and let folks know

that there is absolutely nothing special about Ubuntu, it's just a deriviative

of Debian, and many other distros are just as good (if not better in some ways

-- for example, I think many other distros have better communities).

>Had he picked PCLinuxOS (and he should have), that would be the

>distribution people were fawning over.

 

In some places, people _are_ fawning over PCLinuxOS. Refer to the answer you'll

get to that question above. The PCLinuxOS community is modeling itself after

the Ubuntu community, and doing their PR the same way. The only real difference

this time is that, after going through the same thing with the Ubuntu

community, the wider audience is now prepared for overhyped distros. The net

result is that overhyping a Linux distro is no longer as effective. We've seen

it before. Now the counter reaction is swift and fairly effective in dealing

with overhyped distros. That's why you haven't seen the word "PCLinuxOS"

replacing the word "Ubuntu" in every article written about Linux, despite the

succes in pushing it to #1 (over Ubuntu) on distrowatch's page hit counter.

(ie, Although some mechanism to crudely measure "popularity" can be affected by

overzealous fanbois, their hype is no longer as effective in generating

mindshare as it was when Ubuntu fanbois did it).

>And BTW I think this is a good thing for Linux.

>My kids tell me that their friends use Ubuntu, teachers have at least heard

>of Ubuntu and so forth.

 

Ubuntu is fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. But then, most

all of the major distros, including Debian upon whose shoulders Ubuntu stands,

are just as fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. What I would

tell anyone wanting to try Linux is as follows:

 

Ubuntu has relatively nothing to offer over most other distros, and in some

ways, has less to offer. If you're just being introduced to Linux, it's

perfectly fine to use Ubuntu as your first Linux install/introduction. But if

there's anything about it that doesn't appeal to you, don't be the least bit

hesitant to jump ship. Do that with complete confidence because the odds are

good that another distro will suit you better. And when I say "anything about

Ubuntu that doesn't appeal to you", I mean anything, including its

infrastructure. For example, don't find the community very helpful and honest,

and more consumed with hyping the distro than in addressing problems? Jump

ship. But a better approach, is to ask (in a neutral venue) for a

recommendation for which distro to try, and don't go with the one that is

recommended by the most fanbois, but rather, the one that is recommended most

eloquently and honestly. In my experience, one will be better off.

>Something is certainly afloat with this distribution, and for Linux it's a

>good thing.

 

I can't agree. I think that there are better distros, and I'd prefer to see

them recommended over Ubuntu. But again, most of them are relatively equal as

an introduction to Linux, so any one will suit most people for that purpose.

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

>>Moshe Goldfarb

>>It's money.

>>It's connections.

>>It's organization, at least compared to most Linux's.

>>THAT is why Ubuntu is catching on.

>>You guys just don't get the fact that money and influence run the show,

>>whether or not you like it.

>

> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and

> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think

> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with

> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,

> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a

> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it

> comes to infrastructure).

>

> But it's not the non-Linux media that is hyping Ubuntu. It's the linux-oriented

> folks. Are you saying that they're being bought off by Canonical? (Possible.

> The company is trying to make money, and not doing nearly as well at that as

> Red Hat and Novell, and probably even Mandriva. Maybe they're trying some

> strong-arm tactics to rectify the situation). What you're implying is something

> quite damning of these folks' commitment to openness. You're suggesting

> something quite nefarious and underhanded. After all, I've not seen any of

> these people openly acknowledge that they're getting paid, or coerced, each

> time they specifically mention Ubuntu.

 

I think you're being overly harsh. Yes, Ubuntu would be nothing without

Debian. But it made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great

unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no

time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.

 

Ubuntu made things more Human. The problem was that People (Debian Fan

Geeks) had worked hard to get Debian working and where it is. And they

were damned if they were going to RTFM for Aunty Roy and his ilk - e.g

clueless idiots who just wanted to save money rather than buy into the

"learn by doing" ethos of many Linux distros.

>

>>Shuttleworth's name lends credibility to Linux and he happened to pick

>>Ubuntu.

>

> Actually, he picked Debian. Then, he got a few devs to make another "me too"

> deriviative of Debian, and called it Ubuntu. Then, he got a snowballing group

> of overzealous fanbois to overhype it as if Ubuntu is Linux (and imply that the

> Ubuntu folks are responsible for everything that goes into that distro), and

> conveniently fail to give credit and support to the Debian folks.

 

He also got a distro together which installed and made the press. But I

take your point.

>

>>Do you think all those mainstream press reviews (both good and bad) just

>>*happened* to Ubuntu?

>

> No, it was overhyped by fanbois, as anyone who has been following Linux for

> awhile will attest. If you don't believe me, go to a place that isn't

> controlled by Ubuntu moderators, and where users of other distros hang out,

> such as Distrowatch, and ask the question:

>

> "What two distros are most commonly associated with overzealous fanbois?"

>

> I'm confident what the answer will be. There is a reason for _that_

> too.

 

Yes - it has appealed to new boys. And new boys get excited. Its like

COLA - a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. It has also seen

a lot of goo developers piling to develop things to make things easier.

>

> And now, what is needed is for people to counter the hype, and let folks know

> that there is absolutely nothing special about Ubuntu, it's just a deriviative

> of Debian, and many other distros are just as good (if not better in some ways

> -- for example, I think many other distros have better communities).

 

There are things special about Linux. A long term plan and a

commitment. That might exist for Debian too but thats no good if people

dont know about it. I guess I am giving some defense to "stupid people

here".

 

>

>>Had he picked PCLinuxOS (and he should have), that would be the

>>distribution people were fawning over.

>

> In some places, people _are_ fawning over PCLinuxOS. Refer to the answer you'll

> get to that question above. The PCLinuxOS community is modeling itself after

> the Ubuntu community, and doing their PR the same way. The only real

> difference

 

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

> this time is that, after going through the same thing with the Ubuntu

> community, the wider audience is now prepared for overhyped distros. The net

> result is that overhyping a Linux distro is no longer as effective. We've seen

> it before. Now the counter reaction is swift and fairly effective in dealing

> with overhyped distros. That's why you haven't seen the word "PCLinuxOS"

> replacing the word "Ubuntu" in every article written about Linux, despite the

> succes in pushing it to #1 (over Ubuntu) on distrowatch's page hit counter.

> (ie, Although some mechanism to crudely measure "popularity" can be affected by

> overzealous fanbois, their hype is no longer as effective in generating

> mindshare as it was when Ubuntu fanbois did it).

 

YOu want hype? Read Mark Kent, Homer, Linonut or Roy Schestowitz in COLA.

>

>>And BTW I think this is a good thing for Linux.

>>My kids tell me that their friends use Ubuntu, teachers have at least heard

>>of Ubuntu and so forth.

>

> Ubuntu is fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. But then, most

> all of the major distros, including Debian upon whose shoulders Ubuntu stands,

> are just as fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. What I would

> tell anyone wanting to try Linux is as follows:

 

I disagree. The community in Debian are far less willing to hold

hands. Some people need hand holding.

>

> Ubuntu has relatively nothing to offer over most other distros, and in some

> ways, has less to offer. If you're just being introduced to Linux, it's

> perfectly fine to use Ubuntu as your first Linux install/introduction. But if

> there's anything about it that doesn't appeal to you, don't be the least bit

> hesitant to jump ship. Do that with complete confidence because the odds are

> good that another distro will suit you better. And when I say "anything about

> Ubuntu that doesn't appeal to you", I mean anything, including its

> infrastructure. For example, don't find the community very helpful and honest,

> and more consumed with hyping the distro than in addressing problems? Jump

> ship. But a better approach, is to ask (in a neutral venue) for a

> recommendation for which distro to try, and don't go with the one that is

> recommended by the most fanbois, but rather, the one that is recommended most

> eloquently and honestly. In my experience, one will be better off.

 

I tried Ubuntu because the Debian crowd told me my new HW was much more

likely to work with their installer! I since moved back because of the

fanboi element and the fact that unstable suddenly support my SATA

chipset.

>

>>Something is certainly afloat with this distribution, and for Linux it's a

>>good thing.

>

> I can't agree. I think that there are better distros, and I'd prefer to see

> them recommended over Ubuntu. But again, most of them are relatively equal as

> an introduction to Linux, so any one will suit most people for that

> purpose.

 

I think Ubuntu nicked your girlfriend :-

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

 

> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and

> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think

> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with

> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,

> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a

> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it

> comes to infrastructure).

 

No, you've got it wrong.

What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has

HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.

Not that he is doing it for the money.

 

 

> But it's not the non-Linux media that is hyping Ubuntu. It's the linux-oriented

> folks. Are you saying that they're being bought off by Canonical?

 

No, that's why I said good and bad.

I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get

reviewed, press etc.

 

> (Possible.

> The company is trying to make money, and not doing nearly as well at that as

> Red Hat and Novell, and probably even Mandriva. Maybe they're trying some

> strong-arm tactics to rectify the situation). What you're implying is something

> quite damning of these folks' commitment to openness. You're suggesting

> something quite nefarious and underhanded. After all, I've not seen any of

> these people openly acknowledge that they're getting paid, or coerced, each

> time they specifically mention Ubuntu.

 

You have it completely wrong.

 

 

>>Shuttleworth's name lends credibility to Linux and he happened to pick

>>Ubuntu.

>

> Actually, he picked Debian. Then, he got a few devs to make another "me too"

> deriviative of Debian, and called it Ubuntu. Then, he got a snowballing group

> of overzealous fanbois to overhype it as if Ubuntu is Linux (and imply that the

> Ubuntu folks are responsible for everything that goes into that distro), and

> conveniently fail to give credit and support to the Debian folks.

 

The older Linux stalwarts will be more satisfied with Debian.

The newer converts will gravitate to Ubuntu because Debian is too

confusing.

>>Do you think all those mainstream press reviews (both good and bad) just

>>*happened* to Ubuntu?

>

> No, it was overhyped by fanbois, as anyone who has been following Linux for

> awhile will attest. If you don't believe me, go to a place that isn't

> controlled by Ubuntu moderators, and where users of other distros hang out,

> such as Distrowatch, and ask the question:

 

Partially, but Shuttleworth has gotten Ubuntu on the mainstream map.

 

> "What two distros are most commonly associated with overzealous fanbois?"

>

> I'm confident what the answer will be. There is a reason for _that_ too.

>

> And now, what is needed is for people to counter the hype, and let folks know

> that there is absolutely nothing special about Ubuntu, it's just a deriviative

> of Debian, and many other distros are just as good (if not better in some ways

> -- for example, I think many other distros have better communities).

 

There is nothing special about any of the 600+ different Linux

distributions.

They all come down to a base Linux system.

 

>>Had he picked PCLinuxOS (and he should have), that would be the

>>distribution people were fawning over.

>

> In some places, people _are_ fawning over PCLinuxOS. Refer to the answer you'll

> get to that question above. The PCLinuxOS community is modeling itself after

> the Ubuntu community, and doing their PR the same way. The only real difference

> this time is that, after going through the same thing with the Ubuntu

> community, the wider audience is now prepared for overhyped distros. The net

> result is that overhyping a Linux distro is no longer as effective. We've seen

> it before. Now the counter reaction is swift and fairly effective in dealing

> with overhyped distros. That's why you haven't seen the word "PCLinuxOS"

> replacing the word "Ubuntu" in every article written about Linux, despite the

> succes in pushing it to #1 (over Ubuntu) on distrowatch's page hit counter.

> (ie, Although some mechanism to crudely measure "popularity" can be affected by

> overzealous fanbois, their hype is no longer as effective in generating

> mindshare as it was when Ubuntu fanbois did it).

 

But PCLinuxOS, while better than Ubuntu IMHO, hasn't made the progress

Ubuntu has.

I attribute that at least in part to Shuttleworth.

 

>>And BTW I think this is a good thing for Linux.

>>My kids tell me that their friends use Ubuntu, teachers have at least heard

>>of Ubuntu and so forth.

>

> Ubuntu is fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. But then, most

> all of the major distros, including Debian upon whose shoulders Ubuntu stands,

> are just as fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. What I would

> tell anyone wanting to try Linux is as follows:

>

> Ubuntu has relatively nothing to offer over most other distros, and in some

> ways, has less to offer. If you're just being introduced to Linux, it's

> perfectly fine to use Ubuntu as your first Linux install/introduction. But if

> there's anything about it that doesn't appeal to you, don't be the least bit

> hesitant to jump ship. Do that with complete confidence because the odds are

> good that another distro will suit you better. And when I say "anything about

> Ubuntu that doesn't appeal to you", I mean anything, including its

> infrastructure. For example, don't find the community very helpful and honest,

> and more consumed with hyping the distro than in addressing problems? Jump

> ship. But a better approach, is to ask (in a neutral venue) for a

> recommendation for which distro to try, and don't go with the one that is

> recommended by the most fanbois, but rather, the one that is recommended most

> eloquently and honestly. In my experience, one will be better off.

>

>>Something is certainly afloat with this distribution, and for Linux it's a

>>good thing.

>

> I can't agree. I think that there are better distros, and I'd prefer to see

> them recommended over Ubuntu. But again, most of them are relatively equal as

> an introduction to Linux, so any one will suit most people for that purpose.

 

Of course there are better distributions, PCLinuxOS for one but by a good

thing I mean the community has to start somewhere.

Linux has to get on the map, and Ubuntu has helped tremendously whiel the

others are languishing for years.

I attribute this to Shuttleworth and had he picked Mepis then that would be

the popular one.

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:16:55 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> Shuttleworth's name lends credibility to Linux and he happened to pick

> Ubuntu.

 

I found ubuntu because it was the first distro that I heard RMS

recommend. I had no idea who this shuttleworth fellow was. I had heard

of the selling of thawte to verisign, and I heard of a man buying a space

flight, but I didn't know his name, or his connections to this OS. But

then again, I live life like a hermet, and don't watch much tv. After

installing, I read up a bit, and he seams like an ok fellow. Unless he

is a plant from the NSA!

 

stonerfish

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:26:03 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

 

> Actually, he picked Debian. Then, he got a few devs to make another "me

> too" deriviative of Debian, and called it Ubuntu. Then, he got a

> snowballing group of overzealous fanbois to overhype it as if Ubuntu is

> Linux (and imply that the Ubuntu folks are responsible for everything

> that goes into that distro), and conveniently fail to give credit and

> support to the Debian folks.

 

Shuttleworth has given Debian ample credit, and huge amounts of code

filter back down to Debian from his 60 paid programmers and the rest of

the Ubuntu developer community.

> Ubuntu is fine for a newbie to get his introduction to Linux. But

> then, most all of the major distros, including Debian upon whose

> shoulders Ubuntu stands, are just as fine for a newbie to get his

> introduction to Linux. What I would tell anyone wanting to try Linux

> is as follows:

 

Debian is a technical distribution designed for technical uses and

technical users. Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, etc., are specifically

designed to be easy for new and non-technical users to install and

administer. I would *never* hand a new non-technical user a Debian CD

and expect him to be able to install and configure it himself.

While Ubuntu is easier for "average people" to use (until they hit

snags, that is), there is nothing in Ubuntu that makes it less

powerful or less available for advanced use, than any other debian

based distro.

 

I wasted half a year due to this misinformation about how Ubuntu is

"for fools only". I would like to stop it.

 

i

>Moshe Goldfarb

>> You seem to be suggesting that folks are hyping Ubuntu because of "money and

>> connections". (I can't buy into the organization angle though. Frankly, I think

>> that Ubuntu's infrastructure is awful. Their forums are filled with

>> misinformation and inaccuracies. The moderators are pretty much clueless,

>> incompetent fanbois who don't even follow their own "guidelines". There's a

>> real disconnect between the devs and the endusers. Ubuntu is a mess when it

>> comes to infrastructure).

>No, you've got it wrong.

>What I am saying is that Shuttleworth's money, connections, influence has

>HELPED Ubuntu get on the radar map.

 

How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable

company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's

hardly Bill Gates.

>Not that he is doing it for the money.

 

I never implied that you implied that. But you've suggested a direct

correlation between his money/connections and the press that Ubuntu gets, so

the natural conclusion is money is being paid for good press. After all, Red

Hat and Novell make way more money than Canonical, and yet they don't get the

hype that Ubuntu gets.

 

I still say it has nothing whatsoever to do with Shuttleworth's "money and

connections", and everything to do with the fact that his distro was the first

to urge fanbois to rabidly overhype the distro everywhere (and they happened to

do that at the very moment that Linux finally had enough support in place to be

considered as an alternate to Windows. May I add that this support was done

entirely outside of the Ubuntu community. It was the kernel devs, gnome devs,

debian devs, etc, that did that work). That trick worked once. It's not working

quite as well the second time with PCLinuxOS because people have gotten wise to

the hype that a "me too" distro (like Ubuntu) is better than other distros. It

isn't.

 

In conclusion, Ubuntu's success (relative to other distros) is _entirely hype_,

which just happened to have the luck of happening at the most opportune moment

in Linux's history. There are many other distros just as good (or better), but

they don't get the press simply because they weren't overhyped by fanbois at

that very moment in history. But that was then, and this is now, and the

message needs to get out that Ubuntu is, and has always been, mostly hype. That

doesn't mean it's a bad distro. It just means that it doesn't offer anything

most other distros don't also offer, and in fact, in some ways offers less.

>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get

>reviewed, press etc.

 

I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it

was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi

hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly

opportune moment.

 

It was PR. That doesn't speak anything toward the merits of the distro compared

to other distros.

>The older Linux stalwarts will be more satisfied with Debian.

>The newer converts will gravitate to Ubuntu because Debian is too

>confusing.

 

How so? I found Debian every bit as easy to install and use as Ubuntu.

Actually, I found Debian _easier_ to use because I needed to make some special

customizations to my system, and I found accurate/helpful docs for Debian to do

just that, whereas I found inaccurate info from the Ubuntu community (plus a

_lot_ of irrelevant noise from fanbois to wade through), and never could get

Ubuntu to do what I wanted. (It probably can, with proper docs, but why bother

when Debian does it easier and quicker?)

>There is nothing special about any of the 600+ different Linux distributions.

>They all come down to a base Linux system.

 

Indeed. So it's time for everyone to drop the hype about Ubuntu.

>But PCLinuxOS, while better than Ubuntu IMHO, hasn't made the progress

>Ubuntu has.

 

That's only because of 2 reasons:

 

1) Most importantly, too many people know now that there are Linux distros

where overzealous fanbois overhype their pet distro. Overhyping a distro isn't

as effective nowadays. People have seen it before (from Ubuntu) and are jaded

to it (for good reason. The overwhelming majority of distros are not much

different).

 

2) It's now at least a year after Linux base (and GUI) support has been good

enough that it can be seen as an alternative to Windows. The most opportune

moment to overhype a distro is already past. Anyone trying to do it now is

wasting their breath... unless they truly have something that no other distro

has.

>I attribute that at least in part to Shuttleworth.

 

That's your prerogative to do so, but I just don't see convincing evidence to

support that conclusion, and therefore disagree.

>the community has to start somewhere.

 

As I said, there's nothing wrong with starting at Ubuntu, just as long as you

know that it's not any better than many other distros out there, and if there's

anything you don't like about the distro and/or its community, you should not

be the least bit hesitant to jump ship. In fact, you probably should keep your

eye out for anything that looks like it may be better for you, because odds are

good that there may be such a thing out there somewhere.

 

That is the message that needs to get out there, but there is unfortunately

still too many holdouts to the Ubuntu hype.

 

Incidentally, I hope you don't get the impression that I'm "attacking" you. I'm

not calling you "stupid" or a "troll" or whatever it is that too many people in

this newsgroup seem to regard as standard protocol. But I don't agree with your

assessment of Shuttleworth's influence, or how Ubuntu got to where it is today,

and am not swayed from my own assessments. (On the other hand, I do agree with

some points, such as the statement about distros being similiar due to using

the base Linux system pretty much as is).

>Hadron

>Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great

>unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no

>time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.

 

I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but

not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.

 

For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it

wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was

absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.

 

It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian

stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it

came from, and was available at the time.

>Ubuntu made things more Human.

 

I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume

it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that

it is not so.

>The problem was that People (Debian Fan

>Geeks) had worked hard to get Debian working and where it is. And they

>were damned if they were going to RTFM for Aunty Roy and his ilk - e.g

>clueless idiots who just wanted to save money rather than buy into the

>"learn by doing" ethos of many Linux distros.

 

In the matter of support, I find Debian's online docs to be much more

professional, accurate, and applicable to the latest version than Ubuntu's

equivalents. The Ubuntu forums are inundated with mostly irrelevant fanboi

noise, and what little info is there is often inaccurate or misleading. For

example, if you search for how to have the OS boot into console mode and

automatically start up an app, you may find a reference to editing an inittab

file. So a gutsy gibbon enduser fires up his text editor, ready to apply the

needed changes to his inittab file. But there is no such file. Why? Because the

very poorly documented Upstart has replaced the normal linux bootup code in

later Ubuntu versions, and makes that file irrelevant. Yet, that's the answer

you get on Ubuntu's forums. There are other examples I can list as well, which

you'll find if you're willing to wade through the interminable amounts of

fanboi noise such as how everything associated with MS is horrible, and how

Ubuntu is perfect.

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

 

If it is "elitist" to say "Spare me the hype and deliver the goods, and if the

goods don't match the hype, I'm calling you on it", then so be it. I don't

think that's the least bit elitist. In fact, I think it's the opposite. It's

the essense of pragmatism. But it's your prerogative to see it otherwise.

>I disagree. The community in Debian are far less willing to hold

>hands. Some people need hand holding.

 

I'm perfectly fine with someone directing me to docs as long as those

accurately answer my question. I've found that the Ubuntu community offers no

more accurate answers, and in fact, you usually have to wade through an

annoying amount of fanboi rhetoric to even get to the wrong answer.

>netcat

>Shuttleworth has given Debian ample credit, and huge amounts of code

>filter back down to Debian from his 60 paid programmers and the rest of

>the Ubuntu developer community.

 

How "huge" is huge? Ubuntu got the codebase for an entire distro from Debian.

Ubuntu has been notoriously criticised for giving too little back downstream

compared to what they take.

>Debian is a technical distribution designed for technical uses and

>technical users. Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, etc., are specifically

>designed to be easy for new and non-technical users to install and

>administer. I would *never* hand a new non-technical user a Debian CD

>and expect him to be able to install and configure it himself.

 

I disagree that Debian is any less capable for new and non-technical users to

install and administer. If someone can install Ubuntu, then he can install

Debian. You _should_ hand that user a Debian CD because if he can install

Ubuntu, then you'll be surprised how easily he can install Debian in the same

situation (ie, same machine, with the same initial contents).

>Ignoramus15795

>While Ubuntu is easier for "average people" to use (until they hit

>snags, that is), there is nothing in Ubuntu that makes it less

>powerful or less available for advanced use, than any other debian

>based distro.

 

I'd agree, but then, by the same token, there is nothing in most other distros

that makes them less powerful or less available for _non-advanced_ use.

 

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

On 2008-04-08, Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote:

>>Ignoramus15795

>>While Ubuntu is easier for "average people" to use (until they hit

>>snags, that is), there is nothing in Ubuntu that makes it less

>>powerful or less available for advanced use, than any other debian

>>based distro.

>

> I'd agree, but then, by the same token, there is nothing in most other distros

> that makes them less powerful or less available for _non-advanced_ use.

>

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

 

So, then, maybe you can educate me a little. What is there in Ubuntu

that is not present in Debian?

 

Personally, after becoming dissatisfied with Fedora, I decided to

switch to Debian. It was my first choice, and it worked on one old

machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run

on the hardware that I had with other machines.

 

Then I tried ubuntu and saw that it was as good as debian, but more

modern and released regularly.

 

Hence my choice of ubuntu, I am working on standardizing everything on

ubuntu that I can lay my hands on.

 

So, let me know what you think are the diffs between debian and ubuntu

..

i

Jeff Glatt wrote:

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

 

"Moshe Goldfarb" (aka flatline---) is not part of the "Ubuntu hype

machine" -- he's a WinTroll trying to stir up dissension amongst Linux

users. This "my distribution is better than anyone elses" crap is just pure

stupid.

 

I don't use Ubuntu, but I appreciate the fact that many people have gotten

their start in Linux via Ubuntu. And I think Ubuntu is pretty clear about

their Debian roots. There are many distributions based on Debian -- and

they're not advertising that fact 24/7 either. Nor do Red Hat or Slackware

based distributions constantly mention their roots. It's just the way it

is. They're not hiding, it's just not that big of a deal.

 

--

RonB

"There's a story there...somewhere"

Jeff Glatt wrote:

> I disagree that Debian is any less capable for new and non-technical users

> to install and administer. If someone can install Ubuntu, then he can

> install Debian. You should hand that user a Debian CD because if he can

> install Ubuntu, then you'll be surprised how easily he can install Debian

> in the same situation (ie, same machine, with the same initial contents).

 

Yep. Not so a couple distributions back, but I had no trouble with Debian

the last time I tried it out. Nor did I have trouble with Slackware the

last time I tried it. Or... any distribution, actually. I do think I have a

little easier time than the average installer because I use older "trailing

edge" technology.

 

--

RonB

"There's a story there...somewhere"

Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> Hadron

>> Ubuntu made Linux (or even Debian) more acceptable to the great

>> unwashed. Ubuntu would install on a wider range of HW than Debian in no

>> time at all - this has since benefited Debian too.

>

> I disagree. Yes, Ubuntu would install on more hardware than Debian stable, but

> not Debian testing. That's because Ubuntu wasn't based upon stable.

>

> For example, when I went to install the last version of stable on my system, it

> wouldn't because of SATA support. But testing had no problem, and was

> absolutely no less capable than Ubuntu.

>

> It's unfair to suggest that Ubuntu (ie, Debian testing) was better than Debian

> stable because you're not comparing Ubuntu to the version of Debian that it

> came from, and was available at the time.

>

>> Ubuntu made things more Human.

>

> I think that this is a bit of hype. I don't even know what it means. I presume

> it means "easier to install", or something like that. And my experience is that

> it is not so.

>

 

 

I agree there. I just installed Debian on another machine and found the

install very simple and straight forward. Much more so than Ubuntu. And

Ubuntu ain't hard.

caver1

>Ignoramus15795

>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?

 

I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy who is

saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with many other

distros, including Debian.

>Debian worked on one old

>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run

>on the hardware that I had with other machines.

 

Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian

stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such

problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of

Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware

in the newer versions.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:02:28 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

 

> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable

> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's

> hardly Bill Gates.

 

Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in

power broker circles for his investment capital company.

 

I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu and while he is

certainly no Bill Gates, things have to be put into perspective.

 

IOW compared to what the other distributions are getting in terms of money

verses the development costs.

>>Not that he is doing it for the money.

>

> I never implied that you implied that. But you've suggested a direct

> correlation between his money/connections and the press that Ubuntu gets, so

> the natural conclusion is money is being paid for good press. After all, Red

> Hat and Novell make way more money than Canonical, and yet they don't get the

> hype that Ubuntu gets.

>

> I still say it has nothing whatsoever to do with Shuttleworth's "money and

> connections", and everything to do with the fact that his distro was the first

> to urge fanbois to rabidly overhype the distro everywhere (and they happened to

> do that at the very moment that Linux finally had enough support in place to be

> considered as an alternate to Windows. May I add that this support was done

> entirely outside of the Ubuntu community. It was the kernel devs, gnome devs,

> debian devs, etc, that did that work). That trick worked once. It's not working

> quite as well the second time with PCLinuxOS because people have gotten wise to

> the hype that a "me too" distro (like Ubuntu) is better than other distros. It

> isn't.

>

> In conclusion, Ubuntu's success (relative to other distros) is _entirely hype_,

> which just happened to have the luck of happening at the most opportune moment

> in Linux's history. There are many other distros just as good (or better), but

> they don't get the press simply because they weren't overhyped by fanbois at

> that very moment in history. But that was then, and this is now, and the

> message needs to get out that Ubuntu is, and has always been, mostly hype. That

> doesn't mean it's a bad distro. It just means that it doesn't offer anything

> most other distros don't also offer, and in fact, in some ways offers less.

>

>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get

>>reviewed, press etc.

>

> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it

> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi

> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly

> opportune moment.

>

> It was PR. That doesn't speak anything toward the merits of the distro compared

> to other distros.

>

>>The older Linux stalwarts will be more satisfied with Debian.

>>The newer converts will gravitate to Ubuntu because Debian is too

>>confusing.

>

> How so? I found Debian every bit as easy to install and use as Ubuntu.

> Actually, I found Debian _easier_ to use because I needed to make some special

> customizations to my system, and I found accurate/helpful docs for Debian to do

> just that, whereas I found inaccurate info from the Ubuntu community (plus a

> _lot_ of irrelevant noise from fanbois to wade through), and never could get

> Ubuntu to do what I wanted. (It probably can, with proper docs, but why bother

> when Debian does it easier and quicker?)

>

>>There is nothing special about any of the 600+ different Linux distributions.

>>They all come down to a base Linux system.

>

> Indeed. So it's time for everyone to drop the hype about Ubuntu.

>

>>But PCLinuxOS, while better than Ubuntu IMHO, hasn't made the progress

>>Ubuntu has.

>

> That's only because of 2 reasons:

>

> 1) Most importantly, too many people know now that there are Linux distros

> where overzealous fanbois overhype their pet distro. Overhyping a distro isn't

> as effective nowadays. People have seen it before (from Ubuntu) and are jaded

> to it (for good reason. The overwhelming majority of distros are not much

> different).

>

> 2) It's now at least a year after Linux base (and GUI) support has been good

> enough that it can be seen as an alternative to Windows. The most opportune

> moment to overhype a distro is already past. Anyone trying to do it now is

> wasting their breath... unless they truly have something that no other distro

> has.

>

>>I attribute that at least in part to Shuttleworth.

>

> That's your prerogative to do so, but I just don't see convincing evidence to

> support that conclusion, and therefore disagree.

>

>>the community has to start somewhere.

>

> As I said, there's nothing wrong with starting at Ubuntu, just as long as you

> know that it's not any better than many other distros out there, and if there's

> anything you don't like about the distro and/or its community, you should not

> be the least bit hesitant to jump ship. In fact, you probably should keep your

> eye out for anything that looks like it may be better for you, because odds are

> good that there may be such a thing out there somewhere.

>

> That is the message that needs to get out there, but there is unfortunately

> still too many holdouts to the Ubuntu hype.

>

> Incidentally, I hope you don't get the impression that I'm "attacking" you. I'm

> not calling you "stupid" or a "troll" or whatever it is that too many people in

> this newsgroup seem to regard as standard protocol. But I don't agree with your

> assessment of Shuttleworth's influence, or how Ubuntu got to where it is today,

> and am not swayed from my own assessments. (On the other hand, I do agree with

> some points, such as the statement about distros being similiar due to using

> the base Linux system pretty much as is).

 

Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is

certainly a major one.

Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,

both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.

It also lends to it's credibility somewhat.

 

Is it the best?

No, I don't think so however Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and

getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.

That can only be a good thing for Linux.

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:09:13 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>Ignoramus15795

>>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?

>

> I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy who is

> saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with many other

> distros, including Debian.

>

>>Debian worked on one old

>>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run

>>on the hardware that I had with other machines.

>

> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian

> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such

> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of

> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware

> in the newer versions.

 

That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is

based on.

In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during

install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:48:45 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:09:13 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>

>>>Ignoramus15795

>>>What is there in Ubuntu that is not present in Debian?

>>

>> I'm not sure why you're asking me this question, because I'm the guy

>> who is saying that Ubuntu doesn't offer anything more than you get with

>> many other distros, including Debian.

>>

>>>Debian worked on one old

>>>machine, until I realized that Debian was too obsolete and did not run

>>>on the hardware that I had with other machines.

>>

>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed

>> Debian stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing

>> had no such problem. It's like the difference between installing on

>> older version of Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have

>> support for newer hardware in the newer versions.

>

> That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it

> is based on.

> In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during

> install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

 

Its amazing what slopware can do ....

 

 

 

--

Rick

>> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable

>> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's

>> hardly Bill Gates.

>Moshe Goldfarb

>Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in

>power broker circles for his investment capital company.

 

I'm pretty well versed in the computer industry, and I had never heard of him

until Ubuntu. I suspect that's also true for most people in this industry.

>I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu

 

That was a relatively long time ago. People are starting to wonder how much

longer Canonical can go on as a company, being that it's obviously not even

making back that money, let alone being profitable. At some point, it either

has to become profitable, or turn into an expensive hobby.

 

If it was really the money being responsible for all the press Ubuntu gets,

then Fedora or SLED would be mentioned much more than Ubuntu, because that's

where the real money is with regard to Linux.

>>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get

>>>reviewed, press etc.

>> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it

>> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi

>> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly

>> opportune moment.

>Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is

>certainly a major one.

>Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,

>both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.

 

I certainly don't think he's hurting Ubuntu (although I think he's quite out of

touch with how the community around it is hurting it), but I simply do not

think he's at all responsible for why Ubuntu is the most overhyped Linux distro

ever to appear on the scene. I stand by my assessment that it's due entirely to

"unwarranted fanboi hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at

a particularly opportune moment in the development of linux".

>Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and

>getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.

>That can only be a good thing for Linux.

 

Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It didn't

have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing, and just as

good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other distros didn't have.

Things probably would have played out exactly the same if it had been Fedora or

Suse mentioned in virtually every linux article at that time, rather than

Ubuntu, for example.

>> Depends upon which version of Debian you use. The last time I installed Debian

>> stable, it didn't recognize my SATA II hard drive. But testing had no such

>> problem. It's like the difference between installing on older version of

>> Ubuntu, or the newest version. You will likely have support for newer hardware

>> in the newer versions.

>Moshe Goldfarb

>That's also what differentiates PCLinuxOS from the Mandriva core that it is

>based on.

>In my case the VIA RAID controller was not recognized by Mandriva during

>install yet was with PCLinuxOS.

 

But that's largely an irrelevant differentiation because all linux distros

update to the latest kernel. The fact that they have different release

schedules just means that, at any particular point in time, one distro may

support a particular piece of hardware or software feature that another

doesn't. But at another (and typically soon) point of time, the other distro

will get the latest updates, and then the shoe may be on the other foot. For

example, maybe if you bought a new piece of hardware today, you may find that

Mandriva supports it better because they've more recently had an update than

PCLinuxOS has.

 

As long as a distro is actively maintained (and Ubuntu is no moreso than many

other distros out there), promoting a distro based upon release schedules is

largely hype and PR. It's not a very pragmatic way to gauge a distro's

usefulness because all distros get their software primarily from the same

sources (for example, they all get their kernel from the same place, and their

GUIs from the same places, etc). So they'll all get the same updates, even if

that doesn't happen at the same moment across all distros.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:24:36 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>> How so? Shuttleworth is hardly a famous person, nor even a CEO of a notable

>>> company. He isn't even known outside of the circle of Linux afficionados. He's

>>> hardly Bill Gates.

>

>>Moshe Goldfarb

>>Actually he is quite well known for his space adventures and is known in

>>power broker circles for his investment capital company.

>

> I'm pretty well versed in the computer industry, and I had never heard of him

> until Ubuntu. I suspect that's also true for most people in this industry.

 

I've been in the business for close to 30 years and I heard of him.

I didn't however realize he was connected with Linux in any way though.

>>I believe he invested 10 million dollars into Ubuntu

>

> That was a relatively long time ago. People are starting to wonder how much

> longer Canonical can go on as a company, being that it's obviously not even

> making back that money, let alone being profitable. At some point, it either

> has to become profitable, or turn into an expensive hobby.

 

I suspect they will start selling support services at some point.

Low overhead and high profit.

> If it was really the money being responsible for all the press Ubuntu gets,

> then Fedora or SLED would be mentioned much more than Ubuntu, because that's

> where the real money is with regard to Linux.

 

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

>>>>I am saying that Shuttleworth's connections have helped Ubuntu get

>>>>reviewed, press etc.

>

>>> I just don't see it. I see much stronger evidence to support the theory that it

>>> was simply the first distro to receive the benefit of unwarranted fanboi

>>> hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at a particularly

>>> opportune moment.

>

>>Well of course there are a number of factors and the fanboi factor is

>>certainly a major one.

>>Overall though, I think that having a dynamic leader with some influence,

>>both financial and connection wise is not hurting Ubuntu.

>

> I certainly don't think he's hurting Ubuntu (although I think he's quite out of

> touch with how the community around it is hurting it), but I simply do not

> think he's at all responsible for why Ubuntu is the most overhyped Linux distro

> ever to appear on the scene. I stand by my assessment that it's due entirely to

> "unwarranted fanboi hysteria-hype to outlets beyond the linux inner circles, at

> a particularly opportune moment in the development of linux".

 

I disagree with *entirely*.

The fanboi phenome has certainly helped though, in a big way.

 

I just don't really get it WRT Ubuntu because I don't find it to be that

good.

It's ugly looking in it's default layout, it seems sluggish to me and the

configuration tools are a mixed bag.

Maybe it's just one of those things that the younger generation has hooked

into that the older folks just don't understand.

I dunno.

 

Personally as far as Linux fanbois and zealots are concerned, in the

overall scheme of things I do wonder if they do more harm to Linux than

good.

Someone who goes around preaching how great Linux is how he never has

problems and how Windows has all kinds of problems certainly looks like an

idiot and loses all credibility when average Joe tries Linux and hates it.

 

 

 

 

>>Ubuntu has done more for desktop Linux and

>>getting noobs to try desktop Linux than all the others combined IMHO.

>>That can only be a good thing for Linux.

>

> Well, the amount of press that Linux got around that period was good. It didn't

> have to be Ubuntu though. Most other distros were the same thing, and just as

> good. It's not like Ubuntu had any software that the other distros didn't have.

> Things probably would have played out exactly the same if it had been Fedora or

> Suse mentioned in virtually every linux article at that time, rather than

> Ubuntu, for example.

 

Well that's my point.

Had Shuttleworth, or any other person with money,connections decided to

back Mepis, I suspect Mepis would be in the position Ubuntu is in today.

 

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

 

 

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:37:10 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

 

> I suspect they will start selling support services at some point. Low

> overhead and high profit.

 

Haven't they always?

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid