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

>>See here for some interesting pointers:

>>http://wiki.debian.org/AptPinning

>

> See? It's stuff like that which makes Debian so useful. They not only walk you

> through how to do something, but give you examples too.

>

> Now let's take a look at something Ubuntu specific like UpStart. Even the

> UpStart FAQ doesn't contain a single example how to do anything with it, and

> its answers are vague and pointless (like "consult your distro's docs). That's

> Ubuntu for you.

 

Did Ubuntu eat your first born?

gls858 wrote:

> ysdywmf wrote:

>> "gls858" <gls858@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:%231E2YzOmIHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> netcat wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:25:34 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>

>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:25:34 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:24:14 -0500, netcat wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:07:44 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course Linux has been improving, but being able to create

>>>>>>> your own

>>>>>>> distribution of the month caters to a small subset of geeks and

>>>>>>> does

>>>>>>> nothing but further the confusion.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The vast majority of the market are USERS not geek programmer

>>>>>>> types.

>>>>>>> That is one major reason why Linux does not appeal to average Joe.

>>>>>> You don't have to be a geek. Under Ubuntu all it takes is one

>>>>>> command

>>>>>> to generate a LiveDVD using your current setup. You can use the

>>>>>> LiveDVD

>>>>>> on future reinstalls or if you plan to install to more than one

>>>>>> machine, and you can also boot it on the same machine or a different

>>>>>> one and have the same settings and applications as on your HD.

>>>>>> Throw in

>>>>>> a USB drive for persistent storage and you can even save data and

>>>>>> configuration changes.

>>>>> You've just proved my point.........

>>>> Fortunately, the average user is smarter than a flounder...

>>> Are you sure about that?

>>>

>>> gls858

>>

>> Well, in your case............

>>

>

> I deal with end users all the time. I know for a fact that a great

> majority are clueless and wouldn't know what Linux is, let alone how

> install and use it.

I would agree and these are the users who know that Vista is a piece of

garbage but they continue to use it. But that choice is not totally

without merit. They use the computer for work and hobbies. They

purchase a scanner, printer or some other hardware and the outside of

the box says it works and supports Vista. They hook up the hardware and

stick a DVD in the drive and the software and drivers gets installed

somewhere (they could care less) and they are not even aware of the name

but they see a choice on the desktop or in the start menu and they can

use the device.

 

In Linux, (much of the time) you need to chase down drivers and the

software (and then need to scrounge folders to find what ever to create

an icon or a menu item) and then only get some of the functionality.

 

When this changes then in Linux and when there is some degree of

standardization in the installs and the packages then you can fault the

Windows or Mac user.

 

The basic truth is they do not want to know and they should not have to

know. Knowing is for those who have an interest in the process as well

as the result. Most of the posters here (except ...LOL who does not

have the intelligence to know) are in that category.

>

> I've loaded Ubuntu on a VM and played with it for a while. The only

> problem I had was getting the video up and going. Took a while to find

> the solution and I got it working, but the average user is just going to

> quit at that point and say the hell with it.

>

>

>

> gls858

>You seem to have a maniacal downer on Ubuntu.

 

I have a "maniacal downer" on Ubuntu hype, and the people it comes from,

especially when it's a disservice to other entities of equal merit. My "beef"

isn't with Ubuntu itself. It's with Ubuntu hype, and the folks who conjure it

up.

 

I wish more people would share that, because otherwise, it's a real disservice

to the great many other distros that have _as much to offer_, but are

shortchanged whenever Ubuntu is specifically cited as "the user-friendly

distro" -- as if none of the others aren't equally as capable. They are.

>Debian has "ad-hoc" releases.

 

There is nothing wrong with releasing software only after it has been

sufficiently developed and tested. That being said, Debian does set some goals

for release dates, even if they are extended for whatever reason the devs see

fit. Furthermore, the existence of "official" release dates is no guarantee

whatsoever that Ubuntu will be more uptodate at any given moment than Debian

testing. In fact, it really can't be since Ubuntu is based upon testing.

 

Anyway, the fact that Debian sets no rigid pattern for release dates is no

basis for suggesting that it is any less capable for any particular linux user

than Ubuntu, and therefore is not a valid reason for the amount of overhyping

that Ubuntu receives.

>Shuttleworth saw Debian as ultimately "amatuerish" and thought

>there was mileage in the system that was being lost. Canonical was

>formed to offer support for business in the same way Red Hat and Suse

>do. Funnily enough, Debian has benefitted here too.

 

It's allowable to sell services to support GPL software. If your point is to

imply that my "beef" with Ubuntu is due to that, you're mistaken. Anyway, this

is irrelevant to why Ubuntu is overhyped (unless what you're suggesting is that

it _deserves_ to be overhyped simply because this helps Canonical sell more

services. Following that reasoning, why shouldn't Fedora, Suse, Mandriva,

Xandros and other distros get as much hype? I'm not implying that they should,

just because they're from commercial companies. I'm just following your

apparent reasoning). The fact that Debian is not entangled with any commercial

model is no basis for suggesting that it is any less capable for any particular

linux user than Ubuntu, and therefore is not a valid reason for the amount of

overhyping that Ubuntu receives.

>The development team that was employed by canonical actually

>supplies as much back to debian as it takes.

 

Some Debian folks have gone on record as complaining about the inadequacy of

Ubuntu's downstream contributions. There has been no strict accounting of what

Ubuntu has given back versus what it has gotten, and I do not see evidence to

support that as much Ubuntu coding has made it back to Debian versus what

Ubuntu takes away.

 

Indeed, just recently some Ubuntu contribution toward the "triggers" package

was rejected, and the Ubuntu contributer had his commit privileges revoked for

the way he handled that contribution. There may not be as much equal symbiosis

as you suggest.

 

[The rest of your post was an irrelevant personal attack, and has therefore

been deleted without further comment].

>Linonut

>I'm running from [Debian] "unstable" right now, and thus am using fairly new

>versions of software.

>

>There are some issues. Sometimes packages come up broken, or some app

>behavior changes a little.

>Usually, a few days later the problem goes away (I tend to update every

>day, and there's always a dozen or so new versions in the queue.)

 

Yes. I experienced that once myself. That can happen with the testing branch

(which is why Debian also offers the stable branch).

 

So is Ubuntu better in this regard? Absolutely not. As is typical in my posts,

I like to cite specific examples and evidence to support my views, so I'll give

you an Ubuntu example:

 

Gutsy Gibbon broke the MidiSport driver package that still appears in the

repository for Gutsy Gibbon. The drivers used to work in the previous version

of Ubuntu, but the Ubuntu devs monkeyed with the way that StartUp and udev

interoperate, and the udev entry for those drivers no longer works. Obviously,

they didn't test those drivers before they released the final version of Gutsy,

nor did they update them to work. That happens. It doesn't make Ubuntu worse in

the larger sense (well, unless you need support for a MidiSport), but it sure

as hell doesn't make Ubuntu more "user friendly" than other distros, despite

the Ubuntu hype otherwise. Ubuntu can adopt all the release schedules it wants,

hand out all the free CDROMs it can, get as many fanbois to knock it up to the

top of the distrowatch charts, spin it any way you want... but in the end,

Ubuntu offers nothing that you can't get from most other distros out there

(including problems).

>Hadron

>Did Ubuntu eat your first born?

 

No, but it disowned my MidiSport interface.

Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

> Jeff Glatt illuminated comp.os.linux.advocacy by typing:

>>>You seem to have a maniacal downer on Ubuntu.

>>

>> I have a "maniacal downer" on Ubuntu hype, and the people it comes from,

>> especially when it's a disservice to other entities of equal merit. My "beef"

>> isn't with Ubuntu itself. It's with Ubuntu hype, and the folks who conjure it

>> up.

>

> Do you want to know something?

>

> Probably not.....

>

> Well I'll tell you anyway.

>

> Your ridiculous stance against Ubuntu actually promotes it.

>

> Work it out for yourself. If you're capable.

 

I'm surprised at you Moog. It appears you do not read what he is

saying. He is right about the fan boy element. He is right about the

differences being minor. He does not say "Ubuntu is rubbish" but rather

that it does not merit it's iconic status on a technical basis.

>

>> I wish more people would share that, because otherwise, it's a real disservice

>> to the great many other distros that have _as much to offer_, but are

>> shortchanged whenever Ubuntu is specifically cited as "the user-friendly

>> distro" -- as if none of the others aren't equally as capable. They are.

>

> So. What you're promoting is freedom to "do as you will" unless of

> course, you disagree with it.

>

> Nice work.

>

> Free and open souce, on *your* terms.

 

Oh no. You obviously dont think too much dilution is a bad thing. Many

of us do. See the mess in sound sub systems previously discussed for a

reason of choice not being a good thing.

>

>>>Debian has "ad-hoc" releases.

>>

>> There is nothing wrong with releasing software only after it has been

>> sufficiently developed and tested. That being said, Debian does set some goals

>> for release dates, even if they are extended for whatever reason the devs see

>> fit. Furthermore, the existence of "official" release dates is no guarantee

>> whatsoever that Ubuntu will be more uptodate at any given moment than Debian

>> testing. In fact, it really can't be since Ubuntu is based upon testing.

>>

>> Anyway, the fact that Debian sets no rigid pattern for release dates is no

>> basis for suggesting that it is any less capable for any particular linux user

>> than Ubuntu, and therefore is not a valid reason for the amount of overhyping

>> that Ubuntu receives.

>

> Sorry. I completely disagree. Debian has *no* structure with releases.

> It gives the impression of....

> "We'll release when we want to".

 

When it works.

>

> If you see that as a Ubuntu failure....then fine. Keep thinking what

> you want, I don't own your mind

>

 

It is a failure if its broken. And you know as well as I do that many of

the upgrade paths bork the system.

Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

> Hadron illuminated comp.os.linux.advocacy by typing:

>> Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

>>

>>> Jeff Glatt illuminated comp.os.linux.advocacy by typing:

>>>>>You seem to have a maniacal downer on Ubuntu.

>>>>

>>>> I have a "maniacal downer" on Ubuntu hype, and the people it comes from,

>>>> especially when it's a disservice to other entities of equal merit. My "beef"

>>>> isn't with Ubuntu itself. It's with Ubuntu hype, and the folks who conjure it

>>>> up.

>>>

>>> Do you want to know something?

>>>

>>> Probably not.....

>>>

>>> Well I'll tell you anyway.

>>>

>>> Your ridiculous stance against Ubuntu actually promotes it.

>>>

>>> Work it out for yourself. If you're capable.

>>

>> I'm surprised at you Moog.

>

> Why?

>

>

>> It appears you do not read what he is saying.

>

> I read everything he said and responded to it.

>

>>He is right about the fan boy element.

>

> Do you think? Do you think I am a fan of Ubuntu or a fan of a

> distribution that actually promotes linux. Do you think I would

> support Gentoo, Ot Slackware, ot Debian, or Suse? or Mandirva before

> Ubuntu? What *i* want is for a user to actually embrace linux. Whatever

> form it may come in.

 

We're not talking about you.

 

It's the general element. I would have thought you could see the

difference. You are a good advocate with a growing knowledge and a sane

approach to issues. You are not the element.

 

But he is right. The Ubuntu "hype" is detrimental to the others in many

ways and almost disrespectful to the Debian heads who created 99% of

what Ubuntu is. It became apparent to me a while back the the "fanboi"

element was starting to drag Ubuntu down - hence my migration to

Debian. It wasn't a hard thing to do - they are basically pretty much

the same thing but Debian being better monitored IMO.

Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

>

> Grow up. FFS.

>

>> [The rest of your post was an irrelevant personal attack, and has therefore

>> been deleted without further comment].

>

> Figures.

>

> In fact, it wasn't an attack against you. But if the cap fits.

 

This:

 

,----

| I cannot understand such belligerent buffoonery as I keep reading in

| your posts, dare I say, drivel.

`----

 

was not a personal attack against him? Crikey Moog, bad day at the

office?

 

It was as personal attack as can be. Did you share a glass with NoStop

or something recently?

>Moog

>It appears you do not read what he is

>saying. He is right about the fan boy element. He is right about the

>differences being minor. He does not say "Ubuntu is rubbish" but rather

>that it does not merit it's iconic status on a technical basis.

 

Absolutely. Has there been anything ambiguous whatsoever about what I'm saying

such that anyone couldn't sum it up that very same way? I mean, you've almost

lifted parts of my posts verbatim to get at the above.

 

He's employing a debating tactic known as "arguing with a straw man". I'm not

going to rant and rail at him, and call him a moron, or whatever. I'm just

going to point out that he is not directly countering the points I raise with

his own evidence/examples, but rather employing questionable tactics (and

definitely engaging in some personal attacks).

 

I don't know. Maybe he doesn't like long posts. Maybe he thinks I'm too

long-winded, and he got bored/distracted, never finished reading, and responded

based upon all his own assumptions about what I said. Maybe if I was the Mac

user he thinks I am, I'd be able to use Finder to discern an explanation.

>>> I wish more people would share that, because otherwise, it's a real disservice

>>> to the great many other distros that have _as much to offer_, but are

>>> shortchanged whenever Ubuntu is specifically cited as "the user-friendly

>>> distro" -- as if none of the others aren't equally as capable. They are.

>> So. What you're promoting is freedom to "do as you will" unless of

>> course, you disagree with it.

>> Nice work.

>> Free and open souce, on *your* terms.

>Oh no. You obviously dont think too much dilution is a bad thing. Many

>of us do. See the mess in sound sub systems previously discussed for a

>reason of choice not being a good thing.

 

I don't think he's talking about the proliferation of distros above, Hadron.

(I'm not talking about that either. I'm talking about Ubuntu being overhyped,

which is not at all what Moog is obviously talking about). I'm not sure what

he's alluding to above, but I believe that it may be setting up a straw man

argument to me. It sounds like he's accusing me of being against open source. I

don't know where he's getting that from, but it may just be the establishment

of a straw man argument, upon which to base some future personal attack. (ie,

Maybe I'll someday post something he doesn't like, and he'll say "This is

coming from the same guy who is against open source", or something, instead of

having to write some long, studious, serious reply to whatever point I raise).

 

Strange place you have here. It's sort of the open source version of Alice In

Wonderland.

>>Debian has *no* structure with releases.

>> If you see that as a Ubuntu failure....then fine. Keep thinking what

>> you want

>It is a failure if its broken. And you know as well as I do that many of

>the upgrade paths bork the system.

 

Of course. I cited a specific example with the Gutsy Gibbon MidiSport drivers.

(I'm not sure if he'll respond with a "That's it?? You base it all on one

example?" which of course would be incredibly disingeuous because we know that

there hasn't been just one example of that sort of thing. The citing of one

example does not preclude the existence of other examples. That should be

logically evident). Just because there was a hard timetable for the final Gutsy

Gibbon release at 6 months from the previous Ubuntu release did not prevent the

existence of a broken package in GG's repository. It happens. Just like in

other distros... those other distros that Ubuntu has nothing over, despite the

hype (in this case, the hype that its release schedule makes it "better". It

certainly wasn't better that a piece of my hardware stopped working. And who

knows who else had other troubles? Thank god I didn't have a wireless card

because I heard about those poor folks). I had to research the problem (and I

found the correct answer on a Gentoo forum -- not the Ubuntu forums). I had to

run gedit with administrator privileges to edit a udev config file and rewrite

a udev rule. Does that sound "user friendly"?? Debian testing didn't break

those drivers. It may not always be that way. But it certainly was this time...

once again... altogether now... despite the fanboi hype that Ubuntu is so much

more "user friendly" than all those other distros, especially the stuff that is

claimed not to be user friendly such as Debian. Bah. Hype. Ptooey. (Quick!

Duck, Hadron)

Hadron wrote:

> Moog <efcmoog@gmail.com> writes:

>> Grow up. FFS.

>>

>>> [The rest of your post was an irrelevant personal attack, and has therefore

>>> been deleted without further comment].

>> Figures.

>>

>> In fact, it wasn't an attack against you. But if the cap fits.

>

> This:

>

> ,----

> | I cannot understand such belligerent buffoonery as I keep reading in

> | your posts, dare I say, drivel.

> `----

>

> was not a personal attack against him? Crikey Moog, bad day at the

> office?

>

> It was as personal attack as can be. Did you share a glass with NoStop

> or something recently?

 

 

 

Well to me it does beg question as to why you complain on a Ubuntu

newsgroup about Ubuntu. Then I remembered that this is cross posted from

COLA. That does answer a lot.

caver1

measekite, the dumbest jackass ever, wrote:

>

> I would agree and these are the users who know that Vista is a piece of

> garbage but they continue to use it.

----------------------------------------

You're a known idiot who also just happens to be a real moron!

Frank

Hadron wrote:

> Ignoramus22864 writes:

>> Hadron wrote:

>>

>>> Google up pinning and stable, testing and unstable.

>

>> I don't know, maybe I missed something, but I did not think at the

>> time that "testing" was appropriate for applications where money is at

>> stake.

>

> Thats a bit of old rhetoric. The fact is that what is viewed as "stable"

> in Ubuntu is in the distro/repository known as "testing" in

> Debian. Google it up.

>

> "stable" does not mean it works - it means nothing much changes except

> for security updates. HPT made this mistake too and ended up looking a

> bit of a clot.

 

http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/hadron-quark-troll.html

 

[citaat]

Debian Stable is one of the most widely used distros for mission

critical applications and where one wants minimal impact to production

work. Very few require bleeding edge software to be productive.

 

Yet Hadron insists that Debian Stable is full of bugs and too backward

for usage:

 

Subject: Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than

Microsoft Windows

Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:50:07 +0100

Message-ID: fr08c1$9e1$2@registered.motzarella.org

 

> Hadron has an apparent inability to recognise how more consistent usage

> of Debian Stable will only help his usage of the product, preferring unstable

> versions of Debian if not for the only reason as an opportunity to

> attack Linux/OSS.

 

Once more for the hard of brain power : I use testing. Not unstable.

And I use it for a reason - Debian Stable is simply too buggy and

backward and I cant be arsed to manage pinning or selectively

monitoring backports.

[/citaat]

> The Ubuntu team dont wave a magic wand and make all this stuff work you

> know. They take it, try it and if it "works for them" its probably in.

>

> If you get a good testing/stable mix using debian pinning you can then

> lock it down and have it work for years.

>

> Don't listen to the fanboyz.

 

ROTFLOL! K just sprayed my monitor with coffee! You're a riot,

really!

 

--

HPT

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:11:55 -0700, Frank <fb@osspan.clm> wrote:

>measekite, the dumbest jackass ever, wrote:

>

>>

>> I would agree and these are the users who know that Vista is a piece of

>> garbage but they continue to use it.

>----------------------------------------

>You're a known idiot who also just happens to be a real moron!

>Frank

 

 

Just for Frankie fu*k-up

 

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

>>Moog

>>It appears you do not read what he is

>>saying. He is right about the fan boy element. He is right about the

>>differences being minor. He does not say "Ubuntu is rubbish" but rather

>>that it does not merit it's iconic status on a technical basis.

>

> Absolutely. Has there been anything ambiguous whatsoever about what I'm saying

> such that anyone couldn't sum it up that very same way? I mean, you've almost

> lifted parts of my posts verbatim to get at the above.

>

> He's employing a debating tactic known as "arguing with a straw man". I'm not

> going to rant and rail at him, and call him a moron, or whatever. I'm just

> going to point out that he is not directly countering the points I raise with

> his own evidence/examples, but rather employing questionable tactics (and

> definitely engaging in some personal attacks).

>

> I don't know. Maybe he doesn't like long posts. Maybe he thinks I'm too

> long-winded, and he got bored/distracted, never finished reading, and responded

> based upon all his own assumptions about what I said. Maybe if I was the Mac

> user he thinks I am, I'd be able to use Finder to discern an explanation.

>

>>>> I wish more people would share that, because otherwise, it's a real disservice

>>>> to the great many other distros that have _as much to offer_, but are

>>>> shortchanged whenever Ubuntu is specifically cited as "the user-friendly

>>>> distro" -- as if none of the others aren't equally as capable. They are.

>

>>> So. What you're promoting is freedom to "do as you will" unless of

>>> course, you disagree with it.

>

>>> Nice work.

>

>>> Free and open souce, on *your* terms.

>

>>Oh no. You obviously dont think too much dilution is a bad thing. Many

>>of us do. See the mess in sound sub systems previously discussed for a

>>reason of choice not being a good thing.

>

> I don't think he's talking about the proliferation of distros above, Hadron.

> (I'm not talking about that either. I'm talking about Ubuntu being overhyped,

> which is not at all what Moog is obviously talking about). I'm not sure what

> he's alluding to above, but I believe that it may be setting up a straw man

> argument to me. It sounds like he's accusing me of being against open source. I

> don't know where he's getting that from, but it may just be the establishment

> of a straw man argument, upon which to base some future personal attack. (ie,

> Maybe I'll someday post something he doesn't like, and he'll say "This is

> coming from the same guy who is against open source", or something, instead of

> having to write some long, studious, serious reply to whatever point I raise).

>

> Strange place you have here. It's sort of the open source version of Alice In

> Wonderland.

 

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.

>

>>>Debian has *no* structure with releases.

>>> If you see that as a Ubuntu failure....then fine. Keep thinking what

>>> you want

>

>>It is a failure if its broken. And you know as well as I do that many of

>>the upgrade paths bork the system.

>

> Of course. I cited a specific example with the Gutsy Gibbon MidiSport drivers.

> (I'm not sure if he'll respond with a "That's it?? You base it all on one

> example?" which of course would be incredibly disingeuous because we know that

> there hasn't been just one example of that sort of thing. The citing

> of one

 

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.

> example does not preclude the existence of other examples. That should be

> logically evident). Just because there was a hard timetable for the final Gutsy

> Gibbon release at 6 months from the previous Ubuntu release did not prevent the

> existence of a broken package in GG's repository. It happens. Just like in

> other distros... those other distros that Ubuntu has nothing over, despite the

> hype (in this case, the hype that its release schedule makes it "better". It

> certainly wasn't better that a piece of my hardware stopped working. And who

> knows who else had other troubles? Thank god I didn't have a wireless card

> because I heard about those poor folks). I had to research the problem (and I

> found the correct answer on a Gentoo forum -- not the Ubuntu forums). I had to

> run gedit with administrator privileges to edit a udev config file and rewrite

> a udev rule. Does that sound "user friendly"?? Debian testing didn't break

> those drivers. It may not always be that way. But it certainly was this time...

> once again... altogether now... despite the fanboi hype that Ubuntu is so much

> more "user friendly" than all those other distros, especially the stuff that is

> claimed not to be user friendly such as Debian. Bah. Hype. Ptooey. (Quick!

> Duck, Hadron)

 

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 .....

 

--

If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling

*less* than Win 98 by a factor of two.

comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy

gls858 wrote:

> ysdywmf wrote:

>> "gls858" <gls858@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:%231E2YzOmIHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> netcat wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:25:34 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>

>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:25:34 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 12:24:14 -0500, netcat wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:07:44 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course Linux has been improving, but being able to create your

>>>>>>> own

>>>>>>> distribution of the month caters to a small subset of geeks and does

>>>>>>> nothing but further the confusion.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The vast majority of the market are USERS not geek programmer types.

>>>>>>> That is one major reason why Linux does not appeal to average Joe.

>>>>>> You don't have to be a geek. Under Ubuntu all it takes is one command

>>>>>> to generate a LiveDVD using your current setup. You can use the

>>>>>> LiveDVD

>>>>>> on future reinstalls or if you plan to install to more than one

>>>>>> machine, and you can also boot it on the same machine or a different

>>>>>> one and have the same settings and applications as on your HD.

>>>>>> Throw in

>>>>>> a USB drive for persistent storage and you can even save data and

>>>>>> configuration changes.

>>>>> You've just proved my point.........

>>>> Fortunately, the average user is smarter than a flounder...

>>> Are you sure about that?

>>>

>>> gls858

>>

>> Well, in your case............

>>

>

> I deal with end users all the time. I know for a fact that a great

> majority are clueless and wouldn't know what Linux is, let alone how

> install and use it.

>

> I've loaded Ubuntu on a VM and played with it for a while. The only

> problem I had was getting the video up and going. Took a while to find

> the solution and I got it working, but the average user is just going to

> quit at that point and say the hell with it.

 

Pretty much the same applies for end users of other operating systems.

Only that they think that there is no alternative and, after all, they

have payed for the stuff.

Windows is usually adapted for the specific hardware it comes with: all

the necessary drivers are pre-configured so that there are no nasty

surprises when the user starts the machine. Even a re-install will only

be painless if it is done from a backup copy of the vendor-supplied

installtion or from the vendor-supplied CDs.

I very much doubt that Joe Averageuser is able to buy Windows Vista in a

shop and install it on his PC and have *everything* running smoothly.

 

 

--

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

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?