Jump to content

Hate Ubuntu? It's normal!


Alessandro17
 Share

82 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I don't understand what is so annoying about dist-upgrading and why it should be done "constantly".

How about once a month?

Needless to say, I see zero advantages of running Ubuntu over Debian.

As to the "automated setup" use one of the countless Debian derivatives which are based on Debian Proper (but personally I love the great Debian flexibility, and anyway, if you use the task "desktop", you'll get something very similar to Ubuntu but a lot better, IMO).

Well, when you have a constantly changing system like Testing, sometimes configuration files and settings can get overwritten, not to mention the ton of bandwidth that you end up using. Some people want a distro that's relatively new, but doesn't radically change over a period of time. Also, if you wait a whole month, you're leaving yourself open to security exploits. Not a very good idea.

 

Yes, you can use a distro based on Debian instead of one that's forked, but the problem is that most of those distros are either defunked or not maintained in an up-to-date manner. The few that come to my mind that appear to be active are Dreamlinux (which didn't work for me), Mepis (which is really nice, but probably won't work on newer hardware), eLive, and Sidux (which, given the nature of Sid, things tend to break). I don't mean to put any of these distros down as inferior and there are many others, but Ubuntu gives the best of good hardware detection along with an unchanged system. I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing the suckiness compared to what Ubuntu was designed for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ubuntu isn't forked, it's still based on Debian... if you look in most packages you'll see they are still done by the original (debian) maintainer and recompiled for ubuntu. A debian maintainer does a bit more than just collect a new release and compiling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)sometimes configuration files and settings can get overwritten,

 

2)not to mention the ton of bandwidth that you end up using.

 

3)Also, if you wait a whole month, you're leaving yourself open to security exploits. Not a very good idea.

 

4)most of those distros are either defunked or not maintained in an up-to-date manner

 

5)Mepis (which is really nice, but probably won't work on newer hardware)

 

6)Sidux (which, given the nature of Sid, things tend to break).

 

7)Ubuntu gives the best of good hardware detection along with an unchanged system.

 

1)No. The default is "N" (no, do not overwrite)

2)Not a problem for most nowadays. As I said, upgrade less often.

3)Download the security updates only.

4)Try Parsix.

5)It works fine with my bleeding edge hardware, a lot better than Ubuntu.

6)Ubuntu is based on Debian Sid as well.

7)Not in my experience (at least on 5 computers), just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, the thread is fulla fanboys. I triple boot, ubuntu, vista, and osx. All three are great, all three have their points. The other linux distros IMO do not help me do what I need to do. From a strictly professional standpoint. Time Spent and Functionality needs to equal money. I can do that with these 3 OS'es. The other Linux distro's cannot do that for me. Got to use the OS for productivity, if not, you are just a fanboy.
What on earth are you talking about? Linux is Linux. Don't post if you are just going to make stuff up.
Sounds like stupid "nerd-rage". I'm currently running Ubuntu as my main OS, but have used flavors of Linux (Slack, RedHat, Suse, Mandrake etc) in the pass, and think its a great distribution. These vocal zealots need to get the f*ck over it.
Generally "nerd-rage" is well backed with facts and data. It's pretty easy to dismiss something you don't agree with, but you aren't convincing anybody who actually knows better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)No. The default is "N" (no, do not overwrite)

Only on some configuration files, but not on everything. For example, if you upgrade something like acpid or even put in a new linux-image package, then those config files (if anyone even modifies those) will be changed. For me, it's not an issue because the defaults work perfectly fine, but for others this may be an issue if they like to tweak a lot of their files. But for things like smb.conf, dpkg will usually prompt you unless you change it to say yes.

2)Not a problem for most nowadays. As I said, upgrade less often.

Depends on where you live. For me, I live in the states, so yes this issue is not really a problem. For others who live in other countries where ISPs can't pump out that much data (such as in smaller countries like New Zealand or Romania) or simply choose not to, this can be a problem. But upgrading less leads to my next point...

3)Download the security updates only.

But then what's the point of using a rolling release system? Official security updates can be viewed on the Debian Security Announce page for Stable, but it's less known for Testing & Unstable. This is prefectly fine for those who upgrade on a daily basis, but it gets hard for those who are trying to pluck out what's a secuurity update and what's a regular bug fix. The better choice for 2 & 3 would be to run Stable instead or perhaps a derivative of Debian Stable like Mepis. (which has an updated kernel)

4)Try Parsix.

I said most, not all. But the ones that are surviving seem to be coming along pretty well. I'll have to try Parsix at a later point in time.

5)It works fine with my bleeding edge hardware, a lot better than Ubuntu.

 

7)Not in my experience (at least on 5 computers), just the opposite.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ubuntu devs fsck'd up something in the kernel configuration, but from my experiences with giving it to others, I've never had a problem installing it. Do you know what the problem could be?

6)Ubuntu is based on Debian Sid as well.

Ehh, kinda. They do take a snapshot of Sid, but to say it's based directly on it is not correct anymore. The Ubuntu team takes this snapshot and does their own bug fixing with it. Of course, they've borked it deliberately so that it's not compatible with Debian anymore.

 

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_...u_patch_review/

 

I've looked at a some of the patches posted on the QA page and a lot of them are either useless things or don't fit directly with Debian's development.

 

Now for me, I've wiped out Ubuntu in favor of Debian Testing, so I don't use it anymore. But the things I was trying to address before was to simply put away the silly bashing.

 

Now, the gripes for me with Ubuntu are a couple things:

-QA sucks. Hardy had the most install failues I've ever seen on the ubuntu forums. I once got a package (pingus) that was supposed to play stereo sound, but only one channel was playing. There were a couple other packages that were broken, but I can't remember them right now. :)

-Bloat. Oh goodness ubuntu, what did you do to yourself? My Debian install starts up at least 25% faster!

-Custom Ubuntu patches suck. A lot of Ubuntu's security updates usually come from Debian, but when they try to go patch something themselves, it usually doesn't work right. I remember the custom Xorg patch they did and poof, no X!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official security updates can be viewed on the Debian Security Announce page for Stable, but it's less known for Testing & Unstable. This is prefectly fine for those who upgrade on a daily basis, but it gets hard for those who are trying to pluck out what's a secuurity update and what's a regular bug fix. The better choice for 2 & 3 would be to run Stable instead or perhaps a derivative of Debian Stable like Mepis. (which has an updated kernel)

 

Unstable doesn't have security repositories, nor is one needed (you run unstable only if you want to dist-upgrade very often). Testing has an official security repo. Commenting out (or unchecking in synaptic) all repos but security takes only a few seconds.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Ubuntu devs fsck'd up something in the kernel configuration, but from my experiences with giving it to others, I've never had a problem installing it. Do you know what the problem could be?

 

No I don't.

 

Ehh, kinda. They do take a snapshot of Sid, but to say it's based directly on it is not correct anymore. The Ubuntu team takes this snapshot and does their own bug fixing with it. Of course, they've borked it deliberately so that it's not compatible with Debian anymore.

 

http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/a_bad_...u_patch_review/

 

But they "guarantee" only a couple of thousands, versus the 20,000 you find in Debian Testing.

 

 

Now, the gripes for me with Ubuntu are a couple things:

-QA sucks. Hardy had the most install failues I've ever seen on the ubuntu forums. I once got a package (pingus) that was supposed to play stereo sound, but only one channel was playing. There were a couple other packages that were broken, but I can't remember them right now. :)

-Bloat. Oh goodness ubuntu, what did you do to yourself? My Debian install starts up at least 25% faster!

-Custom Ubuntu patches suck. A lot of Ubuntu's security updates usually come from Debian, but when they try to go patch something themselves, it usually doesn't work right. I remember the custom Xorg patch they did and poof, no X!

 

I agree with much of that, especially the first and last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate Ubuntu, it's not destroying other distributions at all (aside from taking their developers? but they get paid by Cannonical). Ubuntu as a distribution simply got mainstream because of corporate support, and that is a good thing. Ubuntu opens the gate for many computer enthusiasts to try out other distros. OK fine, this might not be the case if you have 5+ years of linux experience, but for the majority of linux users out there right now, it is the norm to have Ubuntu as your first distro. I used linux extensively on my laptop before I got a new desktop rig with OSX86, I used to use Archlinux, a distribution that is very customizable. But guess what? 80% of their user-base comes from Ubuntu. Ubuntu is in fact helping the FOSS by giving them more exposure to apps that really shine from the FOSS world, i.e. GIMP, Amorak, Pidgin, OpenOffice, so regardless of their commercial motive, they have certainly helped Linux greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i see the problem with ubuntu.

 

it's LINUX USERS IN GENERAL.

 

the reason why I have never ever tried to install any linux distribution on my system is due to the fact that I really don't want to sit and compile anything onto my computer. if someone is making an effort to allow us to run the OS without having to do all compiling, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM!? You elitest Linux users need to get off the spring loaded teeter-totter sea-horses you've found in the sand-lot at the park, and really listen to what you're saying.

 

ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'RE ON A FORUM THAT IS DEDICATED TO MAC OPERATING SYSTEM USABILITY AND OPERATION. You guys must be really blind, or really stupid (not all of you, obviously) when you say that people should get a "real OS", or "compile their own OS instead of Ubuntu"

 

TAKE A HINT: I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT I CAN COMPILE AN OS FOR MY SYSTEM. if that makes you feel high and mighty, then you SERIOUSLY have a problem when you put someone down based on how they go about operating their computer. remember... macs.. they :JUST WORK". is there something wrong with that? sure. ubuntu may not work on every system, but then again, what developer has used every hardware configuration known to man to test their software? Why does Windows crash often?!

 

- Hardware

- Software Development

- Drivers

 

Are those not the 3 main reasons we strive to program for all scenarios? to allow people to be able to use software more efficiently than the next? Don't expect a developer to run a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there are tons of bugs they haven't gotten to that they don't have enough information to solve yet.

 

sheesh. you guys need to get over yourselves. :thumbsup_anim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i see the problem with ubuntu.

 

it's LINUX USERS IN GENERAL.

 

the reason why I have never ever tried to install any linux distribution on my system is due to the fact that I really don't want to sit and compile anything onto my computer. if someone is making an effort to allow us to run the OS without having to do all compiling, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM!? You elitest Linux users need to get off the spring loaded teeter-totter sea-horses you've found in the sand-lot at the park, and really listen to what you're saying.

 

ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'RE ON A FORUM THAT IS DEDICATED TO MAC OPERATING SYSTEM USABILITY AND OPERATION. You guys must be really blind, or really stupid (not all of you, obviously) when you say that people should get a "real OS", or "compile their own OS instead of Ubuntu"

 

TAKE A HINT: I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT I CAN COMPILE AN OS FOR MY SYSTEM. if that makes you feel high and mighty, then you SERIOUSLY have a problem when you put someone down based on how they go about operating their computer. remember... macs.. they :JUST WORK". is there something wrong with that? sure. ubuntu may not work on every system, but then again, what developer has used every hardware configuration known to man to test their software? Why does Windows crash often?!

 

- Hardware

- Software Development

- Drivers

 

Are those not the 3 main reasons we strive to program for all scenarios? to allow people to be able to use software more efficiently than the next? Don't expect a developer to run a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there are tons of bugs they haven't gotten to that they don't have enough information to solve yet.

 

sheesh. you guys need to get over yourselves. :help:

 

You don't have to compile mandriva, opensuse, pclinuxos, sabayon, sidux, debian. If compiling is the only issue here then in that case u don't have to compile a majority of them and some of these distros r way easier to use than ubuntu may be except sabayon or debian.

 

You really don't know much about linux do u? No one here is saying that gentoo is better than ubuntu, u can't cause they have different aims completely, but for a new user ubuntu isn't the best out there, if u use opensuse and maybe a few others u will know how polished and professional linux can be.

 

The amount of polish in suse is comparable to mac os x, someone would have to be a f****** retard to say ubuntu is as polished as mac os x.

 

This part of the forum is dedicated to unix like OS's so I doubt there is anything wrong to talk about them here. No one here asked u to compile your own OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason why I have never ever tried to install any linux distribution on my system is due to the fact that I really don't want to sit and compile anything onto my computer.

 

So that means you are writing about something you know absolutely nothing about. Get a clue before you come here and write a lot of bulls##t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A17,

 

I am sorry man. I think you are cool and all, but the second this thread was started, it was destined to be a dumpster fire...

 

Cody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i see the problem with ubuntu.

 

it's LINUX USERS IN GENERAL.

 

the reason why I have never ever tried to install any linux distribution on my system is due to the fact that I really don't want to sit and compile anything onto my computer. if someone is making an effort to allow us to run the OS without having to do all compiling, then WHAT IS THE PROBLEM!? You elitest Linux users need to get off the spring loaded teeter-totter sea-horses you've found in the sand-lot at the park, and really listen to what you're saying.

 

ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU'RE ON A FORUM THAT IS DEDICATED TO MAC OPERATING SYSTEM USABILITY AND OPERATION. You guys must be really blind, or really stupid (not all of you, obviously) when you say that people should get a "real OS", or "compile their own OS instead of Ubuntu"

 

TAKE A HINT: I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT I CAN COMPILE AN OS FOR MY SYSTEM. if that makes you feel high and mighty, then you SERIOUSLY have a problem when you put someone down based on how they go about operating their computer. remember... macs.. they :JUST WORK". is there something wrong with that? sure. ubuntu may not work on every system, but then again, what developer has used every hardware configuration known to man to test their software? Why does Windows crash often?!

 

- Hardware

- Software Development

- Drivers

 

Are those not the 3 main reasons we strive to program for all scenarios? to allow people to be able to use software more efficiently than the next? Don't expect a developer to run a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there are tons of bugs they haven't gotten to that they don't have enough information to solve yet.

 

sheesh. you guys need to get over yourselves. :|

 

I've never compiled anything on Linux. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A17,

 

I am sorry man. I think you are cool and all, but the second this tread was started, it was destined to be a dumpster fire...

 

Cody

 

Cody

 

The first post of this thread (the part written by Ladislav) actually mantains that Ubuntu hatred is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cody

 

The first post of this thread (the part written by Ladislav) actually mantains that Ubuntu hatred is wrong.

 

No, I understand that, but the title, and all that was sure to ensue...

 

:|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ubuntu has definitely come a looong way from what it was even 6 months ago. 6.06 was the first version of Ubuntu I've tried, and my experience was horrible. Both on a PC and on my Mac, the nvidia drivers were {censored}, nothing was working, wireless, sound...nothing. 6.10 was much better, but still pretty unusable. fast forward to Gusty, 7.10, and it was pretty good, useable this time, things were working...etc. still, I wouldn't really use it as a primary OS. 8.04 now, Hardy, I installed it on my Mac, absolutely zero problems on it. EVERYTHING worked out of the box. I had Optical out sound working fine, Wireless N working, 300mbps, the nvidia drivers were great, had compiz fusion working. It has come a very long way and is now a very excellent operating system competitor to add to the list. If I didn't have OS X, Hardy would be the OS I would use, definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen people, don't look at me as a "hater", neither will I care.

 

Why I don't like Ubuntu:

 

1. Crappy Kernel

2. Bad drivers

3. Slow boot time [seriously now, they will never be better than the original Debian]

4. Bad GUI Implementation [Gnome takes forever to open Firefox. And Gnome is pretty fast as a WM!]

5. Really unstable [i had Gnome components failing every 10 minutes once!]

6. Bad skin [They can do way better]

 

And there are more! I think that they would start acting like drama queens when somebody asks if it's based on Debian. I for one do not approve of this distribution. End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen people, don't look at me as a "hater", neither will I care.

 

Why I don't like Ubuntu:

 

1. Crappy Kernel

2. Bad drivers

3. Slow boot time [seriously now, they will never be better than the original Debian]

4. Bad GUI Implementation [Gnome takes forever to open Firefox. And Gnome is pretty fast as a WM!]

5. Really unstable [i had Gnome components failing every 10 minutes once!]

6. Bad skin [They can do way better]

 

And there are more! I think that they would start acting like drama queens when somebody asks if it's based on Debian. I for one do not approve of this distribution. End.

 

1. Untrue

2. Where? Ubuntu is actually known for its better drivers, other than wireless, of course.

3. I agree, but you can change that.

4. That hasnt been the case for quite some time, it only opens slow on the first instance, after that it loads instantly, same with all apps and linux in general.

5. Huh? unstable? where?

6. Default "{censored} stain" brown i agree is ugly, but again, you can mod it, change it, whatever, something you cant do with OSX however.

 

Not saying i like ubuntu...but linux is nice, can be somewhat faster than osx if you know what your doing, can even make it look like leopard if you like, only difference is the apps are somewhat lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying i like ubuntu...but linux is nice, can be somewhat faster than osx if you know what your doing, can even make it look like leopard if you like, only difference is the apps are somewhat lacking.

 

 

Linux is nice no doubt, but ubuntu isn't. I am sorry but no gnome theme looks like leopard 100%, all those gnome themes look like {censored} compared to Aqua and the gnome devs aren't even trying to make gnome look good at least kde 4 looks good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linux is nice no doubt, but ubuntu isn't. I am sorry but no gnome theme looks like leopard 100%, all those gnome themes look like {censored} compared to Aqua and the gnome devs aren't even trying to make gnome look good at least kde 4 looks good.

 

Go check my latest post in the linux desktop screenshot thread....you dont think that is nice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go check my latest post in the linux desktop screenshot thread....you dont think that is nice?

 

I don't see any window in it, just a desktop back ground, a few widgets and icons.

 

Edit:

 

At the bottom your panel is too dark, I can barely see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any window in it, just a desktop back ground, a few widgets and icons.

 

Edit:

 

At the bottom your panel is too dark, I can barely see it.

 

Either you have poor eyesight or a poorly lit monitor as it's actually quite bright (bright enough, with a tint of white)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either you have poor eyesight or a poorly lit monitor as it's actually quite bright (bright enough, with a tint of white)

 

 

I don't have poor eye sight and my monitor is awesome, I was trying to be nice but now I will be honest, thats by far the crappiest and ugliest desktop I have ever seen, have u ever looked at Aqua?

 

There is no way u can compare Aqua to gnome.

 

Like I said before I can't really see any window there so I can't tell what your window decorations and icons such as folder icons, not those OS X icons u r using look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...