On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:48:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

>

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>

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

>>>

>>>

>>

>>>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest

>>>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is

>>>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of

>>>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I

>>>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.

>>>>

>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>>

>>> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.

>>

>> Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and

>> it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to

>> try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is

>> compatible, and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's

>> install by copying the system straight across from the CD. That's

>> significantly faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager

>> during installation.

>>

>> Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still

>> be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at

>> least another six months.

>>

>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer

>>>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation,

>>>> I was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now.

>>>> However, the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some

>>>> of my usual software so I could give it a run for its money - and

>>>> Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no

>>>> Synaptic anywhere on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and

>>>> was told it wasn't even

>>>

>>> apt-get install Synaptic

>>>

>>> failed for me too.

>>>

>>> apt-get install synaptic

>>>

>>> didn't though.

>>

>> It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.

>>

>>> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.

>>

>> I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried

>> to apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal

>> name of the application.

>

>

> LOL. Did you not notice the case?

 

LOL. Your lack of familiarity with Linux culture is showing. But then,

we already know what a faker you are.

netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:48:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>

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

>>

>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:25 +0200, Hadron wrote:

>>>

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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>>> I've taken so long to reply because I wanted to give the very latest

>>>>> Debian a spin to see what you're talking about. Debian Stable is

>>>>> notorious for being well behind other distro's in the name of

>>>>> stability, and Ubuntu is based on Testing anyway, so the version I

>>>>> downloaded was this week's Debian Testing.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>>>

>>>> We know its not a LiveCD. Strawman.

>>>

>>> Some of the people following this thread may not know it, though, and

>>> it's an important point because a LiveCD installer allows the user to

>>> try Linux without touching his HD, make sure his hardware is

>>> compatible, and do a graphical install. Also, most LiveCD distro's

>>> install by copying the system straight across from the CD. That's

>>> significantly faster than Debian's heavy use of the package manager

>>> during installation.

>>>

>>> Debian does have a LiveCD tool now but considers the LiveCD's to still

>>> be experimental. I doubt we'll see any official Debian LiveCD's for at

>>> least another six months.

>>>

>>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer

>>>>> and easy enough that a Windows user could manage. After installation,

>>>>> I was surprised to see how much Debian looks like Ubuntu now.

>>>>> However, the similarity is only cosmetic. I started to install some

>>>>> of my usual software so I could give it a run for its money - and

>>>>> Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus. I snooped around and there's no

>>>>> Synaptic anywhere on the system. Then I tried to apt-get Synaptic and

>>>>> was told it wasn't even

>>>>

>>>> apt-get install Synaptic

>>>>

>>>> failed for me too.

>>>>

>>>> apt-get install synaptic

>>>>

>>>> didn't though.

>>>

>>> It did on the Debian Testing image I was using.

>>>

>>>> Which pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.

>>>

>>> I didn't say I *ran* "apt-get Synaptic" (with quotes), I said I tried

>>> to apt-get Synaptic. Apt-get is used as a verb, Synaptic is the formal

>>> name of the application.

>>

>>

>> LOL. Did you not notice the case?

>

> LOL. Your lack of familiarity with Linux culture is showing. But then,

> we already know what a faker you are.

>

 

So that's you totally lost then.

 

It's nothing to do with quotes.

>netcat

>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and

>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

 

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

>Synaptic wasn't in any of the menus.

 

It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that hasn't

had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at that). That's

how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

>One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some

>commented-out repositories in sources.list

 

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

it.

>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux

>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all

>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging

>systems.

 

But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was written by

the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a package manager,

unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers. Ubuntu devs simply took

the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it (taking all that credit for

making Linux "user friendly").

 

And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of this

user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers, and simply

repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software too.

>> Nothing Ubuntu has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of

>> consumer-friendly advances.

>Ubuntu's big contribution is consumer-friendliness.

 

No, Ubuntu's "big contribution" is taking a snapshot of Debian testing,

tweaking any big unresolved issues with that particular snapshot, and then

adding a lot of hype about how Canonical makes "user friendliness" possible.

No, it's the debian, Gnome, KDE, kernel, etc, developers who do all that, and

these folks "work" for all the other distros too.

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

>> of the box".

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

 

Sure it was. Your big gripe is not finding synaptic, but I found it when I

installed Debian. (But it had moved to another menu).

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:42:43 -0400, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>netcat

>>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and

>>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

>

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

 

With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer. However, for

some situations you have to fall back to the "alternate" CD which uses

Debian's text-based installer.

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

>

> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that

> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at

> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

 

As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is

built on testing.

>>One would think that, like Ubuntu, Debian would at least include some

>>commented-out repositories in sources.list

>

> Well, I just used Synaptic, and whatever repositories were already setup

> for it.

 

I work as much at the command line as in the GUI and know how to find an

application whether it's in the menus or not. Synaptic wasn't there.

>>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux

>>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>

>>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all

>>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.

>

> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was

> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a

> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.

> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

 

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

of others.

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

 

Since Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu

was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,

I would say a little credit is well-deserved.

> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of

> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,

> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software

> too.

 

Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff

to sit around picking their noses. If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer

forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on

turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that

Canonical can stake its business reputation on. In contrast to your

attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu

developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

>>> Nothing Ubuntu has done has been nearly that dramatic in terms of

>>> consumer-friendly advances.

>

>>Ubuntu's big contribution is consumer-friendliness.

>

> No, Ubuntu's "big contribution" is taking a snapshot of Debian testing,

> tweaking any big unresolved issues with that particular snapshot, and

> then adding a lot of hype about how Canonical makes "user friendliness"

> possible.

 

Yet again, I chose Ubuntu over Debian after trying both and finding

Debian to be lacking in consumer friendliness whereas Ubuntu was all

about non-technical users. Several others in this thread have related

similar experiences. Everyone knows that Ubuntu is built on Debian so if

you ask around, you'll find that many Ubuntu users have tried Debian out

of curiosity but found it too difficult and quickly returned to

Ubuntu. You can't explain that away by denying the differences or making

up nasty excuses about "fanboism" and "hype".

> No, it's the debian, Gnome, KDE, kernel, etc, developers who

> do all that, and these folks "work" for all the other distros too.

 

Since Shuttelworth is "First Patron of KDE" thanks to a large donation,

I doubt that KDE minds.

>>>netcat

>>>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and

>>>easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

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

>With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer.

 

I know that. I've installed Ubuntu a number of times. Just noting that Debian

has a LiveCD if that's what you want.

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

>> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that

>> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at

>> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

>As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is

>built on testing.

 

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

testing repositories at that time.

>>>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux

>>>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>>>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all

>>>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.

>> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was

>> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a

>> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.

>> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

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

>of others.

 

You're proving my point again that what Ubuntu offers over the other distros is

mostly hype and PR. Yes, all the distros avail themselves of the same desktops

(ie, Gnome, Xfce, KDE, and the plethora of window managers), the same kernel,

and most all of the same apps. These things are all developed by people who

aren't necessarily associated with any distro (except that Red Hat and Novell

do tend to contribute a lot of code. If what you're implying is that Ubuntu

receives a higher percentage of press because of contributions Canonical has

made to Linux "usability" and "friendliness", then your reasoning falls down

based upon the fact that Red Hat and Novell have contributed more to projects

that truly have made Linux more usable and friendly, such as Gnome, and yet

don't get the hype that Ubuntu gets).

>Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu

>was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,

>I would say a little credit is well-deserved.

 

Credit for hype and PR, yes. But not credit for the usability and "user

friendliness" of Linux. That credit goes to the software made by others, which

Canonical repackages, including the kernel, Gnome, apps, and even Debian's

package manager and the bulk of Debian's repositories.

>> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of

>> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,

>> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software

>> too.

>Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff

>to sit around picking their noses.

 

He pays them to collect and repackage the code of myriads of open source

developers, just like all other distros do. And of course, testing (which

certainly isn't an Ubuntu exclusive).

>If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer

>forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on

>turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that

>Canonical can stake its business reputation on.

 

I have read Ubuntu's developer forums. It's mostly useless noise by Ubuntu

fanbois. I find Canonical's forums to be particularly uninformative.

 

As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:

Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know -- that

it needs to "stake its business reputation" on server support, since that's

where the real money is wrt Linux. Hence, Canonical's recent focus upon

servers. The desktop stuff has proven to be no money maker at all.

>In contrast to your

>attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu

>developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

 

I haven't portrayed Ubuntu as a "parasite". I've simply portrayed it as a

vastly overrated and overhyped distro, which is not any more "usable" or

"friendly" than most other Linux distros. I've also indicated that I think it

has a counterproductive fanboi element that is predominently responsible for

the distro being overrated and overhyped, and that this element has the

annoying tendency to assign credit to Ubuntu/Canonical for Linux's increasing

suitability for mainstream users, when it actually has been the work of many,

many other open source developers, particularly the kernel folks (e.g.

supporting new hardware), and desktop developers (e.g. Gnome and KDE). As far

as I'm concerned, that's taking credit for someone else's work.

>I chose Ubuntu over Debian after trying both and finding

>Debian to be lacking in consumer friendliness whereas Ubuntu was all

>about non-technical users.

 

That's your prerogative. But I don't find your arguments at all convincing that

non-technical users would be at all disadvantaged at trying many other distros

rather than Ubuntu. In fact, it's entirely possible that they can get a better

experience elsewhere. I did.

>Several others in this thread have related similar experiences.

 

There are "several others" who use the many other distros out there, and have

their own testimonies too. If you want to base what is most "usable" and

"newbie friendly" purely upon user testimony, it should be noted that

Distrowatch has listed PCLinuxOS as the #1 distro in its page rankings.

Frankly, that doesn't prove to me that it should therefore be hyped, in nearly

every article about Linux, and by fanbois, as _the_ distro for any newbie to go

to first. But that's because I know that the differences between distros is

relatively minor (because they all use the same codebases), transitory (as

different distros have different release schedules), and arguments otherwise

are typically based upon a given person's anecdotal experience (which doesn't

necessarily make it applicable to someone else), as your argument is anecdotal.

 

Frankly, I would have no problem handing a newbie any one of the distros in

distrowatch's top 10, and if that user could install and use any one of them, I

expect he could also install and use most all of them. And it's entirely

possible that one (or more) of them may ultimately be more useful to him than

Ubuntu, depending upon what he wants/needs. Anyone who suggests otherwise (wrt

Ubuntu) is, as far as I'm concerned, guilty of engaging in hype. And yet,

that's precisely what Ubuntu fanbois have done.

Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>>> netcat

>>>> It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>>> installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer and

>>>> easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

>

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

>

>> With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer.

>

> I know that. I've installed Ubuntu a number of times. Just noting that Debian

> has a LiveCD if that's what you want.

>

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

>

>>> It has to be there (unless it happens to be a version of testing that

>>> hasn't had to ported to the testing repository. But I'd be surprised at

>>> that). That's how I installed some extra packages in Debian.

>

>> As was already noted, I used Testing for my evaluation because Ubuntu is

>> built on testing.

>

> So did I. I found Synaptic, but it may have been something that was in the

> testing repositories at that time.

>

>>>>> Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux

>>>>> "consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>

>>>> BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all

>>>> three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.

>

>>> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was

>>> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a

>>> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.

>>> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

>

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

>> of others.

>

> You're proving my point again that what Ubuntu offers over the other distros is

> mostly hype and PR. Yes, all the distros avail themselves of the same desktops

> (ie, Gnome, Xfce, KDE, and the plethora of window managers), the same kernel,

> and most all of the same apps. These things are all developed by people who

> aren't necessarily associated with any distro (except that Red Hat and Novell

> do tend to contribute a lot of code. If what you're implying is that Ubuntu

> receives a higher percentage of press because of contributions Canonical has

> made to Linux "usability" and "friendliness", then your reasoning falls down

> based upon the fact that Red Hat and Novell have contributed more to projects

> that truly have made Linux more usable and friendly, such as Gnome, and yet

> don't get the hype that Ubuntu gets).

>

>> Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu

>> was consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users,

>> I would say a little credit is well-deserved.

>

> Credit for hype and PR, yes. But not credit for the usability and "user

> friendliness" of Linux. That credit goes to the software made by others, which

> Canonical repackages, including the kernel, Gnome, apps, and even Debian's

> package manager and the bulk of Debian's repositories.

>

>>> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of

>>> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other developers,

>>> and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have this software

>>> too.

>

>> Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff

>> to sit around picking their noses.

>

> He pays them to collect and repackage the code of myriads of open source

> developers, just like all other distros do. And of course, testing (which

> certainly isn't an Ubuntu exclusive).

>

>> If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer

>> forums for awhile, you'd see a tremendous amount of work being done on

>> turning selected Debian Testing releases into a consumer-ready OS that

>> Canonical can stake its business reputation on.

>

> I have read Ubuntu's developer forums. It's mostly useless noise by Ubuntu

> fanbois. I find Canonical's forums to be particularly uninformative.

>

> As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:

> Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know -- that

> it needs to "stake its business reputation" on server support, since that's

> where the real money is wrt Linux. Hence, Canonical's recent focus upon

> servers. The desktop stuff has proven to be no money maker at all.

>

>> In contrast to your

>> attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu

>> developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

>

> I haven't portrayed Ubuntu as a "parasite". I've simply portrayed it as a

> vastly overrated and overhyped distro, which is not any more "usable" or

> "friendly" than most other Linux distros. I've also indicated that I think it

> has a counterproductive fanboi element that is predominently responsible for

> the distro being overrated and overhyped, and that this element has the

> annoying tendency to assign credit to Ubuntu/Canonical for Linux's increasing

> suitability for mainstream users, when it actually has been the work of many,

> many other open source developers, particularly the kernel folks (e.g.

> supporting new hardware), and desktop developers (e.g. Gnome and KDE). As far

> as I'm concerned, that's taking credit for someone else's work.

>

 

 

If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

the looks of it at quite a margin.

http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

caver1

>caver1

>If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

>do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

>the looks of it at quite a margin.

> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

 

You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You

should know better than that.

 

This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which

conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the

least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a

survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include

information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each

server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that

would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

 

Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your

contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing

to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far

too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,

and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user

friendliness over many other distros.

 

I stand by my assessment.

Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> caver1

>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

>> the looks of it at quite a margin.

>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

>

> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You

> should know better than that.

>

> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which

> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the

> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a

> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include

> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each

> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that

> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

>

> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your

> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing

> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far

> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,

> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user

> friendliness over many other distros.

>

> I stand by my assessment.

 

 

 

 

So I am not to believe some one who publishes their findings, so that

others may check them out, but I am to believe you who is? so where is

your questionnaire? Where is your research?

caver1

>caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>

>Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>> caver1

>>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

>>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

>>> the looks of it at quite a margin.

>>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

>>

>> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You

>> should know better than that.

>>

>> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which

>> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the

>> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a

>> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include

>> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each

>> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that

>> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

>> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your

>> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing

>> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far

>> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,

>> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user

>> friendliness over many other distros.

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

 

I strongly suggest you do a search for the keywords "Laura DiDio SCO Linux"

before you continue to endorse this particular source. Otherwise, it could

prove embarrassing for you.

>so that others may check them out

 

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

>but I am to believe you who is? so where is

>your questionnaire? Where is your research?

 

My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that Ubuntu

is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to Ubuntu fanbois?

I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only saying how I see things

after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus other distros. (Nevertheless,

there are obviously people who agree with me as evidenced by the sheer number

of people who have _not_ chosen Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about

"Ubuntu fanbois", and who have publically noted that other distros offer as

much, and sometimes more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these

people with very little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

Jeff Glatt wrote:

>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>

>

>> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>>> caver1

>>>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

>>>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

>>>> the looks of it at quite a margin.

>>>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

>>> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You

>>> should know better than that.

>>>

>>> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which

>>> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the

>>> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a

>>> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include

>>> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each

>>> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that

>>> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

>

>>> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your

>>> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing

>>> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far

>>> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,

>>> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user

>>> friendliness over many other distros.

>

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

>

> I strongly suggest you do a search for the keywords "Laura DiDio SCO Linux"

> before you continue to endorse this particular source. Otherwise, it could

> prove embarrassing for you.

>

>> so that others may check them out

>

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

>

>> but I am to believe you who is? so where is

>> your questionnaire? Where is your research?

>

> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that Ubuntu

> is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to Ubuntu fanbois?

> I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only saying how I see things

> after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus other distros. (Nevertheless,

> there are obviously people who agree with me as evidenced by the sheer number

> of people who have _not_ chosen Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about

> "Ubuntu fanbois", and who have publically noted that other distros offer as

> much, and sometimes more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these

> people with very little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

 

 

 

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

caver1

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:18 -0400, caver1 wrote:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>> caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>

>>

>>> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>>>> caver1

>>>>> If Ubuntu was taking and not giving, only repackaging Debian's work why

>>>>> do Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers in reliability? and at

>>>>> the looks of it at quite a margin.

>>>>> http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

>>>> You're quoting a survey from Yankee Group's Laura DiDio??? For shame. You

>>>> should know better than that.

>>>>

>>>> This survey reports the anecdotal experience of one consulting firm which

>>>> conducted its survey via voluntary web questionaire (which has to be one of the

>>>> least reliable ways to conduct a survey. But I guess that's why they call it a

>>>> survey, rather than study. It's highly unscientific). It also does not include

>>>> information upon the number of servers running each OS, the version of each

>>>> server's OS, differences in hardware in various servers, and other info that

>>>> would be needed to make a truly meaningful comparison.

>>

>>>> Besides finding no factual (as opposed to purely anecdotal) basis for your

>>>> contention that Ubuntu servers do better than Debian servers, this does nothing

>>>> to address my points that Ubuntu is an overhyped distro by fanbois who give far

>>>> too much credit to Ubuntu for things that were achieved by outside developers,

>>>> and that Ubuntu really does not have any real advantage in terms of user

>>>> friendliness over many other distros.

>>

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

>>

>> I strongly suggest you do a search for the keywords "Laura DiDio SCO Linux"

>> before you continue to endorse this particular source. Otherwise, it could

>> prove embarrassing for you.

>>

>>> so that others may check them out

>>

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

>>

>>> but I am to believe you who is? so where is

>>> your questionnaire? Where is your research?

>>

>> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that Ubuntu

>> is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to Ubuntu fanbois?

>> I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only saying how I see things

>> after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus other distros. (Nevertheless,

>> there are obviously people who agree with me as evidenced by the sheer number

>> of people who have _not_ chosen Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about

>> "Ubuntu fanbois", and who have publically noted that other distros offer as

>> much, and sometimes more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these

>> people with very little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

>> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

>

>

>

> Yup. jus wha I thunk. A person full of words that says nuttin.

> caver1

 

Who said anything about Rex Ballard?

 

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

>caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org>

>A person full of words that says nuttin.

 

I've done a pretty good job at enumerating the flaws in that survey, and the

consequently erroneous deductions you based upon it.

 

It's your prerogative to believe that you've made a good case, but I suspect an

unbiased reader would conclude otherwise. Substituting character assassination

for a reasonable rebuttal does nothing to advance your case, and in fact, just

weakens it more.

 

This is a mistake that people who try to advocate for something, but do not

know how to do it effectively, make repeatedly. History has shown us that it

just doesn't work.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:18 -0400, caver1 wrote:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:

 

<SNIP>

>>

>> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that

>> Ubuntu is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to

>> Ubuntu fanbois? I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only

>> saying how I see things after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus

>> other distros. (Nevertheless, there are obviously people who agree with

>> me as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have _not_ chosen

>> Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about "Ubuntu fanbois", and who

>> have publically noted that other distros offer as much, and sometimes

>> more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these people with very

>> little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

>> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

>

>

>

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

 

Glatt:

 

* Throws around inflammatory accusations without proof.

 

* Posts with a Windows newsreader (Forte Agent).

 

* Uses X-No-Archive to keep his posts from being archived for future

reference.

 

* Has on several occasions totally misrepresented my position, even

though I had made it amply clear many times over.

 

* Ignores refutations and repeats the same unproven charges over and

over.

 

* Insults others, but when the favor is returned he lectures them about

stooping to insults.

 

Individually those wouldn't mean much. Together they leave little doubt

that Glatt is just trolling. His trolling style bears a very strong

resemblance to Snit's, though their respective headers are different.

They're just like custom windows installation CDs, which people make

all the time publicly or privately.

 

On Apr 6, 10:19 pm, Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.st...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Somewhere in California - At 8:30 PDT with the release of Snoopy Linux 2.1

> and Goober Linux 1.0, the number of Linux distributions finally surpassed

> the number of actual Linux users."

>

> "We've been expecting it for some time," Merrill Lynch technology analyst

> Tom Shayes said, "but this is a little sooner than most expected. We've

> seen explosive growth in the number of Linux distributions, in fact my

> nephew just put out LittleLinux Chart Tommy Linux 1.1 last week."

>

> http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html

> --

> Moshe Goldfarb

> Collector of soaps from around the globe.

> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

netcat <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:18 -0400, caver1 wrote:

>

>> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>>

>>> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that

>>> Ubuntu is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to

>>> Ubuntu fanbois? I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only

>>> saying how I see things after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus

>>> other distros. (Nevertheless, there are obviously people who agree with

>>> me as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have _not_ chosen

>>> Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about "Ubuntu fanbois", and who

>>> have publically noted that other distros offer as much, and sometimes

>>> more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these people with very

>>> little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

>>> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

>>

>>

>>

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

>

> Glatt:

>

> * Throws around inflammatory accusations without proof.

 

Huh? I find his views very balanced and he clearly a Linux user and

advocate. Typical COLA.

>

> * Posts with a Windows newsreader (Forte Agent).

 

So does Chrisv. Your point is? Ever heard of WINE?

>

> * Uses X-No-Archive to keep his posts from being archived for future

> reference.

 

So what?

>

> * Has on several occasions totally misrepresented my position, even

> though I had made it amply clear many times over.

 

Where? Proof please.

>

> * Ignores refutations and repeats the same unproven charges over and

> over.

 

"proven"? He has his views. And as someone who has migrated his systems

from Ubuntu to Debian I concur with most of what he says about vapid

Ubuntu fanbois like you where your OS seems to be directly linked to the

size of your pecker.

>

> * Insults others, but when the favor is returned he lectures them about

> stooping to insults.

 

Where are these "insults": a general "there are too many fanbois" is not

an insult. It's a verifiable fact and your girly hissy fit in your post

here seems to back him up.

>

> Individually those wouldn't mean much. Together they leave little doubt

> that Glatt is just trolling. His trolling style bears a very strong

> resemblance to Snit's, though their respective headers are different.

 

You mean reasoned response and lack of hysteria? LOL. The more you post

the more you seem to make his point for him.

"netcat" <netcat@idontdospam.invalid> stated in post

X4Wdnbx5EdKwl5fVnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@supernews.com on 4/19/08 8:05 AM:

> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:28:18 -0400, caver1 wrote:

>

>> Jeff Glatt wrote:

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>>

>>> My questionaire and survey about what? About how many people think that

>>> Ubuntu is overrated and overhyped, and how many find that to be due to

>>> Ubuntu fanbois? I'm not out to detail others' perceptions. I'm only

>>> saying how I see things after evaluating the "merits" of Ubuntu versus

>>> other distros. (Nevertheless, there are obviously people who agree with

>>> me as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have _not_ chosen

>>> Ubuntu, the number of people who talk about "Ubuntu fanbois", and who

>>> have publically noted that other distros offer as much, and sometimes

>>> more, than Ubuntu does. You'll quite easily find these people with very

>>> little effort. You just have to look outside Canonical's

>>> fanboi-moderated forums). If you want to survey them, that's up to you.

>>

>>

>>

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

>

> Glatt:

>

> * Throws around inflammatory accusations without proof.

>

> * Posts with a Windows newsreader (Forte Agent).

>

> * Uses X-No-Archive to keep his posts from being archived for future

> reference.

>

> * Has on several occasions totally misrepresented my position, even

> though I had made it amply clear many times over.

>

> * Ignores refutations and repeats the same unproven charges over and

> over.

>

> * Insults others, but when the favor is returned he lectures them about

> stooping to insults.

>

> Individually those wouldn't mean much. Together they leave little doubt

> that Glatt is just trolling. His trolling style bears a very strong

> resemblance to Snit's, though their respective headers are different.

 

What comments of mine do you find to be "trolling"?

 

 

--

I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

>>>>>netcat

>>>>>It's not a LiveCD and the installer wasn't as easy as Ubuntu's LiveCD

>>>>>installer, but it was certainly better than the old Debian installer

>>>>>and easy enough that a Windows user could manage.

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

>>>With Ubuntu, the LiveCD includes a graphical installer.

>> I know that. I've installed Ubuntu a number of times. Just noting that

>> Debian has a LiveCD if that's what you want.

>I know that. Just pointing out that Debian's LiveCD is graphical and

>from comments elsewhere I surmise that it doesn't have a pointy-clicky

>graphical installer yet.

 

It does. But not in the CD that you downloaded/installed, nor the one I used.

You have to get the DVD version.

>Because unskilled users may have to install

>Linux by themselves, a simplified GUI installer with good user guidance

>is one of the major requirements of a consumer OS.

 

The Debian text based installer (well, curses actually) is plenty easy. I'm

confident that any enduser who could install Linux from Ubuntu's installer

could handle the text-based installer as easily (assuming he didn't want to use

the DVD version).

>>>>>>Debian made one of the most important strides toward making linux

>>>>>>"consumer-friendly" with its apt and synaptic package managers.

>>>>>BFD. FreeBSD has Ports, Gentoo has Portage, Red Hat has RPM, and all

>>>>>three have user-friendly wrappers around their packaging systems.

>>>> But the important thing to note is that Ubuntu's package manager was

>>>> written by the Debian developers. Ubuntu developers never did write a

>>>> package manager, unlike BSD, gentoo, Redhat, _and_ Debian developers.

>>>> Ubuntu devs simply took the work of the Debian devs and repackaged it

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

>>>of others.

>> You're proving my point again that what Ubuntu offers over the other

>> distros is mostly hype and PR.

>No, what I'm showing is that you're being hypocritical by accusing Ubuntu

>of something that Debian and other distro's also do.

 

What exactly did I "accuse" Ubuntu (i.e. I assume you mean Ubuntu devs) of

doing that I supposedly claim that Debian and other distros' devs don't do? I

gather from the context of the above quotes, what you're attempting to do (and

yet not doing so directly, perhaps because you're getting confused over what

exactly is, and has, been said), is suggest that I've said only Ubuntu derives

code from outside sources. That of course is a totally inaccurate

misrepresentation of my posts, and you know it, because I've been _stressing_

all along that all distros get their kernel, GUIs, and apps from the same

places. (That's one of the big reasons why Ubuntu can't really be more

user-friendly than the other distros. These are the things that really make an

OS usable for endusers).

 

You're the one who is suggesting that somehow Ubuntu has these magical sources

that contain important, user-friendly stuff that somehow none of the other

distros have. Perhaps you're arguing with yourself (rather than me) here?

>And it does not at

>all follow from what I said that using some of the same pieces makes all

>distro's equally easy for a new non-technical user to install,

>administer, and use.

 

Some? Other than Upstart (which is primarily to speed up the boot process, not

improve user-friendliness), which specific "pieces" does Ubuntu have access to,

which no other distros do, and what is the extent of their impact upon

user-friendliness? Really. What specifically, other than a large amount of

hype?

>> Yes, all the distros avail themselves of the same desktops (ie, Gnome,

>> Xfce, KDE, and the plethora of window managers), the same kernel, and

>> most all of the same apps. These things are all developed by people who

>> aren't necessarily associated with any distro (except that Red Hat and

>> Novell do tend to contribute a lot of code. If what you're implying is

>> that Ubuntu receives a higher percentage of press because of

>> contributions Canonical has made to Linux "usability" and

>> "friendliness", then your reasoning falls down based upon the fact that

>> Red Hat and Novell have contributed more to projects that truly have

>> made Linux more usable and friendly, such as Gnome, and yet don't get

>> the hype that Ubuntu gets).

>Red Hat is a server/corporate distribution

 

But Fedora is not. Neither are many of the other distros which you relegate to

"not as good for a newbie as Ubuntu", unfairly and inexplicably so.

>and not interested in the consumer desktop. Novell only

>took SuSE far enough to sell its own networking and corporate-support

>services and then stopped there

 

OpenSuse is not SLED.

 

Furthermore, there are many other Linux distros out there than those two.

>>>Canonical did far more than merely clone Debian, and since Ubuntu was

>>>consumer-friendly back when Debian was snubbing non-technical users, I

>>>would say a little credit is well-deserved.

>> Credit for hype and PR, yes.

>Credit for listening to non-technical consumers and giving them what

>they wanted, which Debian has so far failed to do.

 

In what ways?

>Debian at least seems

>to be trying now and may by only a year from a real consumer

>distribution. Judging on past history I doubt it would have lifted a

>finger for consumer-level users if Ubuntu hadn't started stealing its

>users away. So if Debian does come out with a good consumer

>distribution, you can thank the likes of Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, etc.

 

No. We can thank the likes of the kernel, Gnome, KDE, and apps devs, and the

Debian devs that package all this stuff up so that Ubuntu devs can get it from

Debian testing and create an Ubuntu release.

>> But not credit for the usability and "user friendliness" of Linux. That

>> credit goes to the software made by others, which Canonical repackages,

>> including the kernel, Gnome, apps, and even Debian's package manager and

>> the bulk of Debian's repositories.

>*ALL* Linux distributions are built on the work of others

 

Glad you've finally realized what I've been telling you all along. Furthermore,

the specific "work of others" includes the kernel, GUIs, apps, and in the case

of apt-based distros, the Debian package manager. These are the things that

make an OS usable and "friendly" to an enduser, and all distros have them.

>and you are

>once again ignoring the copious amounts of code Ubuntu has given back to

>the open-source community.

 

Such as? If it's so copious, how about listing the most important ones and

detailing exactly how, and to what extent, they impact "user friendliness", so

we can deduce if it's substantial, or really mostly hype.

>>>> And Ubuntu devs certainly didn't write Gnome or KDE. The vast bulk of

>>>> this user-friendliness to which you refer was done by other

>>>> developers, and simply repackaged by Ubuntu. The other distros have

>>>> this software too.

>>>Shuttleworth isn't paying 60 professional programmers plus support staff

>>>to sit around picking their noses.

>> He pays them to collect and repackage the code of myriads of open source

>> developers, just like all other distros do. And of course, testing

>> (which certainly isn't an Ubuntu exclusive).

>He also pays them to clean up Debian Testing's problems

 

I include that under "testing". Lots of people test Debian testing -- primarily

the people using Debian, and fix bugs. That's why it's called "testing".

 

Not a Canonical exclusive here.

>to implement features requested by Ubuntu users

 

Most distros implement features requested by users of the distro. Not a

Canonical exclusive here either.

>to assemble the various OSS pieces

>into a distro that consumers will find easy to use

 

Most distros assemble the various OSS pieces into a distro that their users

will find easy to use.

 

Definitely not a Canonical exclusive here.

>and to provide continuing maintenance for up to 3 years.

 

Lots of distros provide continuing maintenance. In fact, Debian has provided

even more than 3 years maintenance on some of its releases.

 

Once again, not a Canonical exclusive here.

 

The problem you're having is that you're really, really short on specifics

(well, really totally devoid of specifics), because the specifics would show

that the vast bulk of what impacts user-friendliness and usability come from

those elements that all distros have access to, and all of them include today.

And that whatever Ubuntu has over other distros is going to boil down to a

little tweaking of those elements (and no more tweaking than is done in all of

the other distros -- including the tweaking in Debian testing from which Ubuntu

gains, and that's forgotten by Ubuntu fanbois), and lots and lots and lots of

hype.

>>>If you lurked in Ubuntu's developer forums for awhile, you'd see a

>>>tremendous amount of work being done on turning selected Debian Testing

>>>releases into a consumer-ready OS that Canonical can stake its business

>>>reputation on.

>

>> I have read Ubuntu's developer forums. It's mostly useless noise by

>> Ubuntu fanbois. I find Canonical's forums to be particularly

>> uninformative.

>Utter nonsense, to put it nicely. The developer forums are mostly tech

>talk and the help areas of ubunutofurms.org are moderated to keep posts

>relevant to the solution being presented.

 

I've found the moderation at ubuntuforums.org to be decidedly amateurish and

ineffective. There remains an inordinate amount of factually incorrect

information, and advocacy noise, and a relatively minor amount of useful,

informed discussion. Ubuntu's forums are mostly a vehicle for fanboi activism.

These are _not_ serious forums. If you want to read a number of serious

discussions then you've got to go somewhere like... debian's mailing list.

Frankly, if I want accurate and informed information, I'll go to Gentoo or Red

Hat sources. ubuntuforums.org is one of the last places I'd go for anything

substantial.

>> As far as Canonical's business motivation regarding Ubuntu is concerned:

>> Canonical appears to have realized what Red Hat and Novell already know

>> since that's where the real money is wrt Linux. Hence, Canonical's

>> recent focus upon servers. The desktop stuff has proven to be no money

>> maker at all.

>Shuttleworth announced at Ubuntu's birth that he intended to create a

>well-funded, self-sustaining consumer distribution by setting up a

>company (Canonical)

 

I don't have access to Canonical's financial records, but it sure as hell

doesn't look like they're making any money selling Ubuntu to desktop users. I

don't see any sign of a "self-sustaining consumer distribution".

>and eventually selling support for a server edition.

 

This is obviously where they're going to have to make money. And it remains to

be seen if they can do it, especially since Canonical depends upon Debian,

whereas Red Hat and Novell don't depend upon any other distro. The latter two

directly utilize the various "linux pieces" (and in fact, have important

developers upon those projects) to put together their distros, have their own

package managers, and do not depend upon anyone else's repos.

>>>In contrast to your

>>>attempt to portray Ubuntu as a parasite, every line of code the Ubuntu

>>>developers generate is given back to the open-source community.

>> I haven't portrayed Ubuntu as a "parasite". I've simply portrayed it as

>> a vastly overrated and overhyped distro, which is not any more "usable"

>> or "friendly" than most other Linux distros.

>Yes you have. You've claimed that it was built on the work of others

 

Of course it was built upon the work of others. You admit that yourself.

>and that it was taking all the credit for thier work

 

Yes. It has been given undo credit for the work of others. It's

"user-friendliness" is primarily the work of kernel devs, GUI (i. e.,

Gnome/KDE) devs, app devs, and the Debian package manager. This work comes from

outside of Canonical. Furthermore, all other distros have access to these

sources, and use them.

 

That's why Ubuntu has been overhyped and overrated.

>while ignoring what it's given back.

 

The extent to which I've "ignored what it's given back" is my counter-argument

that it hasn't given back enough to justify the hype. You're the one who

proposed this topic in response to my assertations about Ubuntu hype, and the

failure to give enough credit to other distros and other sources. Therefore,

it's fair to ask what specifically Ubuntu has given back that makes it

deserving of being mentioned in just about every Linux article as "the easiest

distro to use". My contention is "too little to justify all that hype, which is

the work of fanbois".

>> I've also indicated that I think it has a counterproductive fanboi

>> element that is predominently responsible for the distro being overrated

>> and overhyped, and that this element has the annoying tendency to assign

>> credit to Ubuntu/Canonical for Linux's increasing suitability for

>> mainstream users, when it actually has been the work of many, many other

>> open source developers, particularly the kernel folks (e.g. supporting

>> new hardware), and desktop developers (e.g. Gnome and KDE). As far as

>> I'm concerned, that's taking credit for someone else's work.

>Someone could just as easily claim that Debian would be at the bottom of

>distrowatch's popularity list if not for the hype and fanboism of its

>own developers and users.

 

Oh that sounds like fun. Go over to Distrowatch and suggest that, "Unlike

Ubuntu, Debian would be at the bottom of distrowatch's popularity list if not

for the hype and fanboism of its own developers and users". I would just love

to read the responses to that.

 

Seriously. Do it. I really, really think you _need_ to hear the amount, and

content, of those responses to appreciate how folks in the know realize how

much Ubuntu is _the_ most overhyped linux distro ever.

>However, I think most people would want to see

>some evidence to back up that insult.

 

Try the above experiment for yourself, and you'll see.

>>>I chose Ubuntu over Debian after trying both and finding Debian to be

>>>lacking in consumer friendliness whereas Ubuntu was all about

>>>non-technical users.

>> That's your prerogative. But I don't find your arguments at all

>> convincing that non-technical users would be at all disadvantaged at

>> trying many other distros rather than Ubuntu.

>That's not surprising, since I never argued any such thing.

>I've quite frequently emphasized that there are other consumer-friendly

>distributions in addition to Ubuntu, and even named some. So, why are

>you deliberately mischaracterizing what I said?

 

You mean, like I never said "Ubuntu is rubbish" contrary to your erroneous

claim otherwise?

 

I'm glad you've finally realized that Ubuntu is no more user-friendly than many

other distros. That's what I've been telling you all along.

 

And that's why, whenever anyone suggests otherwise, I'm sure you'll now agree

with me that this is hype.

>> In fact, it's entirely possible that they can get a better experience

>> elsewhere. I did.

>I have explicitly emphasized, again and again and again, that I'm

>talking about new non-technical users.

 

So am I.

>> >>Several others in this thread have related similar experiences.

>> There are "several others" who use the many other distros out there, and

>> have their own testimonies too. If you want to base what is most

>> "usable" and "newbie friendly" purely upon user testimony, it should be

>> noted that Distrowatch has listed PCLinuxOS as the #1 distro in its page

>> rankings.

>Obviously due to PCLinuxOS fanboism and hype.

 

Yes, the PCLinuxOS folks have tried to do what the Ubuntu folks did previously.

But it's not working as well this time because now people realize that there

are relatively little difference between most linux distros and that for one to

claim to be especially suitable for a very large group of people (i.e. Ubuntu's

supposed "user-friendly" pitch) is really hype. I've explained this very thing

in my previous posts. You should read those if you're going to allege what I've

said in those posts. (There are more pertinent details to my argument about

this, which I've omitted here. There's also the matter of timeline).

>And of course the PCLinuxOS developers don't deserve any credit

 

When they say that PCLinuxOS is the most user-friendly distro, and that

everyone new to Linux should start with it, that's hype. If they suggest that

PCLinuxOS does lots of things that most other distros don't do, that's hype. If

they suggest that they've got something special, that other distros don't,

which makes them especially suited for a large group of people, that's hype.

 

And that's what Ubuntu fanbois did.

>the gnome and KDE and other applications developers are the ones who

>made them #1.

 

The KDE devs are responsible for a very, very, very large part of PCLinuxOS's

"user-friendliness". It wouldn't be user-friendly _at all_ without KDE. (They

just recently started shipping a Gnome version. But it really isn't associated

with that distro). But there are other things that also largely contribute to

its popularity/usability, such as the kernel, and apps, and package manager

(again, from Red Hat), plus its Control Center (from Mandriva). So yes, there

is a lot of credit that needs to be doled out to others outside the distro's

devs, and given that, the distro should _not_ be hyped (because it isn't really

the source for what is being hyped).

>> Frankly, that doesn't prove to me that it should therefore be hyped, in

>> nearly every article about Linux, and by fanbois, as _the_ distro for

>> any newbie to go to first.

>Ubuntu *ISN'T* hyped in "nearly every article about Linux". PCLinuxOS,

>SuSE or OpenSuSE, Mandriva, and MEPIS are also often recommended to new

>& non-technical users by the Linux media.

 

How often is "often"? Just today I ran across yet another article purporting to

be a "guide for someone wanting to get into Linux for the first time". It was

just a facade for yet another "how to install Ubuntu" article.

>>But that's because I know that the differences between distros is

>>relatively minor (because they all use the same codebases), transitory

>>(as different distros have different release schedules), and arguments

>>otherwise are typically based upon a given person's anecdotal experience

>>(which doesn't necessarily make it applicable to someone else), as your

>>argument is anecdotal.

>So you admit that your claims are based on merely anecdotal experience

>that isn't necessarily applicable to everyone else?

 

Which claims? My claim that the distros all use the same kernel, GUIs, apps,

and in the case of apt-based distros, the Debian package manager, and therefore

can't have major differences in usability and user-friendliness since these are

the elements that really determine usability and user-friendliness? Care to

suggest that Ubuntu has some kernel, GUIs, apps, or package manager that the

other distros don't have, and explain exactly how, and how much, these figure

into user-friendliness?

>> Frankly, I would have no problem handing a newbie any one of the distros

>> in distrowatch's top 10, and if that user could install and use any one

>> of them, I expect he could also install and use most all of them. And

>> it's entirely possible that one (or more) of them may ultimately be more

>> useful to him than Ubuntu, depending upon what he wants/needs. Anyone

>> who suggests otherwise (wrt Ubuntu) is, as far as I'm concerned, guilty

>> of engaging in hype. And yet, that's precisely what Ubuntu fanbois have

>> done.

>Every distro has its fanbois, Debian included.

 

What do fanbois have to do with a newbie given any one of the distros

in distrowatch's top 10, and if that user could install and use any one

of them, he could also install and use most all of them? To whom are you

responding? Your own strawman?

>By the way, you might want to know that your X-No-Archive is set to

>"yes" so your valuable insights aren't being archived on google groups:

 

Perhaps if you spent less time reading, and concerning yourself with, message

headers, and more time reading the actual content of messages, you wouldn't

make false accusations such as your erroneous claim that I said "Ubuntu is

rubbish", nor be arguing with your own strawmen.

>netcat

>Glatt:

>* Throws around inflammatory accusations without proof.

 

How ironic that the above is an "inflammatory accusation without proof".

>* Has on several occasions totally misrepresented my position, even

> though I had made it amply clear many times over.

 

Like how you falsely alleged I stated "Ubuntu is rubbish" and have failed to

back up that allegation with an actual quote after I requested you to do so?

>* Posts with a Windows newsreader (Forte Agent).

>* Uses X-No-Archive to keep his posts from being archived for future

> reference.

 

As I've pointed out before, perhaps if you spent less time reading, and

concerning yourself, with message headers, and spent more time reading the

actual content of posts, then you wouldn't be making false allegations about

what people have said, posting "inflammatory accusations without proof", and

arguing with your own strawmen.

>* Ignores refutations

 

I've successfully pointed out the errors in many of your erroneous conclusions.

You'd know that if you read the actual content of my posts, instead of only the

message headers.

>and repeats the same unproven charges over and over.

 

I've repeated myself only when you've failed to comprehend it the first time.

>* Insults others, but when the favor is returned he lectures them about

> stooping to insults.

 

How ironic given that you're stooping to insults.

>Individually those wouldn't mean much. Together they leave little doubt

>that Glatt is just trolling.

 

Collectively, your personal attacks leave little doubt that you have no more

"ammunition" in your arsenal with which to argue your erroneous contentions.

That's good as I was getting tired of having to repeat myself whenever you

failed to comprehend something the first time.

>His trolling style bears a very strong

>resemblance to Snit's, though their respective headers are different.

 

I don't know a Snit, but I do have to say that if you're actually keeping notes

on the message headers of various people who post to this newsgroup, then you

seriously need some time away from this place. It does not appear to be doing

you any good whatsoever. Perhaps there is a hobby you should persue instead?

>>netcat

>>His trolling style bears a very strong resemblance to Snit's

>Snit

>What comments of mine do you find to be "trolling"?

 

Perhaps those comments that he'd prefer not to agree with, but has no

convincing counterargument to?

"Jeff Glatt" <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> stated in post

lkek049nroirnpmcqt0t2m38738hpl9usa@4ax.com on 4/19/08 11:33 AM:

>>> netcat

>>> His trolling style bears a very strong resemblance to Snit's

>

>> Snit

>> What comments of mine do you find to be "trolling"?

>

> Perhaps those comments that he'd prefer not to agree with, but has no

> convincing counterargument to?

 

Bingo!

 

 

--

It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu

speech. -- Mark Twain

>

>>>> Several others in this thread have related similar experiences.

>> There are "several others" who use the many other distros out there, and

>> have their own testimonies too. If you want to base what is most

>> "usable" and "newbie friendly" purely upon user testimony, it should be

>> noted that Distrowatch has listed PCLinuxOS as the #1 distro in its page

>> rankings.

 

 

Right now Ubuntu is tops at Distrowatch. Yes PcLinuxOs has been there

but not as often as Ubuntu. Those rankings only have to do with

downloads not capabilities.

caver1