Remarkable Ubuntu Poll

[InorganicMatter]

I hate Ubuntu. 6.10 was the last good version of Ubuntu, and every one since then sucks more than the last. They get bigger, slower, pickier with hardware, and more memory hungry every release. Wireless STILL doesn't work reliably after 3 years of trying.

 

openSUSE FTW!!! After some initial problems that were the fault of my Mac creating bad ISO burns, openSUSE went on flawlessly the first time and everything except my video card worked out of the box. A one-click driver install straight from the openSUSE Wiki got my video up and running, and another one-click install got the kickass desktop effects running.

 

I won't use any other Linux distro now, and openSUSE has officially replaced XP SP 2 as my fallback tried-and-true operating system for computers that can't take Vista, and don't play nice with OSX86.

[GFree]

I like Gutsy Gibbon. Both it and Feisty support 100% of my hardware without fiddling, which is nice. I've also found Gutsy Gibbon to be the first distro I've every used which has the greatest level of support for 64-bit. Yes, 64-bit has been around for a while, but Gutsy has had the least amount of troubles/niggles in 64-bit compared to any other Linux distros I've tried. Apart from a couple of things it's almost identical in operation to 32-bit, which is useful for the future, even if I can't tell any speed increase.

 

Problem was, despite being a power user I haven't stayed with Linux exclusively. Although I dislike the way Windows is headed, I'm not prepared to buy a Mac just yet, the Hackintoshes aren't quite suitable for my system, and Linux just doesn't support enough commercial software. Which is why I'll continue to triple-boot. There's also the fact that compared to many other Linux users, I just don't hate Windows enough. I've mastered it, I don't get BSODs, viruses/trojans/spyware due to many years of experience. This combined with the greater software available for it means I'll probably have to deal with it for a long time to come.

[Alessandro17]

I hate Ubuntu. 6.10 was the last good version of Ubuntu, and every one since then sucks more than the last.

 

I like Gutsy Gibbon. Both it and Feisty support 100% of my hardware without fiddling, which is nice.

 

Great to see how human beings agree all the time

[consolation]

As Hagar said Ubuntu deserves great credit for the number of switchers but, in my experience, the only users who stick with any distro fall into either the very casual or geek camps. For ppl who just need web/email and the odd CV Ubuntu fills the gap nicely, the geekdom will gravitate to whatever distro tickles their fancy for whatever reason comp sci majors do. The problem occurs when users try to do actual work in linux. Then, they discover that linux software (while free) is amateur hour. Ever tried to record music in linux, or edit a movie or do serious graphic design? The apps are light years behind on features and usability offered by commercial Windows/OSX software. Yes there are solutions for most jobs, but you wouldn't and couldn't earn a living with them. Obviously that does not apply to network management et al, programming or other computer specific areas -where linux really shines. As an aside, the GUI of most of these programmes is truly horrendous - the kind of stuff only a lonely teenage boy could appreciate -mmmm an tick box to enable 34FGXI-NP=P, must have that... To anyone expecting a LogicPro or ProTools or CS3 etc it's just laughable.

We have hundreds of distros all carrying the same tired, underdeveloped software - one can't but feel that the effort of the linux community is sadly misplaced. The OS is great, it's just that the rest of the stuff is craptastic.

 

Anyhow, FWIW, my choice would be SimplyMepis. Oh, and puppyLinux, the distro I actually found most useful in real life. Lives on a spare 128MB drive, boots any computer and is lightning fast, saved my butt a whole lot of times.

[Alessandro17]

This issue comes back to haunt us on a regular basis.

 

Here is my opinion:

 

1)For the vast majority of users (90% or more?) Linux has enough applications. If anything, the only area where Linux is lacking is games. People do use their computer to work, but in my experience the vast majority needs an Office Suite (and that is available, of course).

2)Linux has become a lot better regarding available applications than it was when I started using it. Years ago there was at least a dozen tasks I couldn't perform well/at all in Linux. Now I miss only a download accelerator and one of my favorite chess games.

3)Running Windows applications in Linux keeps improving all the time, thanks to Wine, Crossover and Cedega.

4)As Linux gets adopted by more people, more applications will be ported. Thus the main point is: how many computer manufacturers are willing to preinstall Linux on their computers?

[BlueAvenue]

As you can see from my signature, i use PCLinuxOS 2007 . When deciding which distro i would go with

i installed all the popular ones on the Distrowatch hit list. I found PCLinuxOS to be the easiest to install

and use so i went with it. That being said, if there was no PCLinuxOS, i wouldn't hesitate using one of

these: Mandriva,Fedora,Suse,Mepis,or Mint. They are all fine distros.

Lets face it. Linux is a geek OS. So why did i switch to it as my main everyday OS for the last two years?

The number one reason to use linux in my case is YOU CAN GO ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET WITH

TOTAL IMPUNITY. This is a priceless asset as far as i'm concerned. I CAN DOWNLOAD WHATEVER FILE

I WANT , FROM ANY SITE THAT I WANT. I have NO anti-virus or spyware program on my computer.

A secondary reason was i build my own computers (six so far) and linux saves me between $150 to $200

everytime i build one.

 

As regards Leopard, i love that new dock.

 

Later

[consolation]

As regards Leopard, i love that new dock.

 

You sick puppy...

[Alessandro17]

As you can see from my signature, i use PCLinuxOS 2007 .

 

PCLinuxOS is perfectly fine with me. But it is in the same league as Mandriva, not quite as "powerful" as openSUSE or Debian, IMO.

[GFree]

This issue comes back to haunt us on a regular basis.

 

Here is my opinion:

 

1)For the vast majority of users (90% or more?) Linux has enough applications. If anything, the only area where Linux is lacking is games. People do use their computer to work, but in my experience the vast majority needs an Office Suite (and that is available, of course).

2)Linux has become a lot better regarding available applications than it was when I started using it. Years ago there was at least a dozen tasks I couldn't perform well/at all in Linux. Now I miss only a download accelerator and one of my favorite chess games.

3)Running Windows applications in Linux keeps improving all the time, thanks to Wine, Crossover and Cedega.

4)As Linux gets adopted by more people, more applications will be ported. Thus the main point is: how many computer manufacturers are willing to preinstall Linux on their computers?

I just want to have my say on these points:

 

1) For most people, yes, Linux would be fine. One thing Linux could do with though is more commercial software. Most people have limited requirements, but there's still some commercial software that cannot be matched by OSS due to the time and experience spent developing the one tool (eg. Photoshop). There also the fact that any and every possible piece of software probably has been made for Windows, so there's a certain comfort knowing this if you ever need a particular tool (commercial or otherwise). There's no gurantee of that in Linux.

2) I've been using D4X for a while, it's a good download manager that is only beaten by the Free Download Manager in Windows.

3) Wine is a godsend, but sometimes I wonder if it hinders progress of getting ports of games/software to Linux. Then again, if certain software had no chance of appearing on Linux in the first place, it can't hurt.

4) True, but then again commercial software is made for a price, and I doubt many companies will invest in a system port for what is (still) a commerically-insignificant market. We're seeing more progress on the preinstalled-Linux front, but damn it, this is taking too long.

 

People like to keep mentioning the free (as in beer) nature of Linux, as if this means anything. It might when running a business, but let's face it, the world is swimming in pirated software. Why would people bother taking the path of most resistance when it's easier to just keep pirating software for free, particularly at home? Morals don't mean much to most people when it comes to software, regardless of whether they should or not.

[Alessandro17]

Why would people bother taking the path of most resistance when it's easier to just keep pirating software for free, particularly at home?

 

Of course the question is whether it is true that Linux is "the path of most resistance".

That could be true for people who have been using Windows for years, but not for people who have never seen a computer before.

And even long time Windows users get fed up sometimes with the virii, trojans, crashes, maintenance...

[GFree]

Of course the question is whether it is true that Linux is "the path of most resistance".

That could be true for people who have been using Windows for years, but not for people who have never seen a computer before.

And even long time Windows users get fed up sometimes with the virii, trojans, crashes, maintenance...

Indeed. This is why I believe the future success of Linux will come from kids who learn about it when growing up, which is where the OLPC project will prove useful. They are more inclined to play around with Linux than most adult folk who prefer to stick with the status quo.

 

As for viruses and the like, I figure there are two options - you can either move to an entirely different operating system and all the problem this entails... or you can just learn a bit of common sense and good net etiquette which comes from experience. I don't get infected in Windows because I know what I'm doing, and if I can learn the safe way to surf, so can others I figure. Such practices require less work than moving to another OS. Crashes? I suffer crashes/program failures in Linux too. Open Source does not guarantee a better tool, particularly if you submit a bug report and it does entirely unnoticed by the development team (*grumble*). Maintenance? Depends on what you mean. Virus checkers can update by themselves; defrag tools can be scheduled, etc. I do like how with Linux, once it's set up it damn hard to make it suffer the equivalent of "Windows rot", but I figure the issues with Windows are somewhat overblown and entirely manageable with a little knowledge.

[Alessandro17]

As for viruses and the like, I figure there are two options - you can either move to an entirely different operating system and all the problem this entails... or you can just learn a bit of common sense and good net etiquette which comes from experience. I don't get infected in Windows because I know what I'm doing, and if I can learn the safe way to surf, so can others I figure. Such practices require less work than moving to another OS.

 

I tend to be skeptical about that. I know people who definitely don't go to warez or porno sites and yet get their fair share of malware.

 

Crashes? I suffer crashes/program failures in Linux too. Open Source does not guarantee a better tool, particularly if you submit a bug report and it does entirely unnoticed by the development team (*grumble*).

 

In Linux I have the occasional segfault with some apps, but it is hardly ever the entire OS which crashes.

 

Maintenance? Depends on what you mean. Virus checkers can update by themselves; defrag tools can be scheduled, etc. I do like how with Linux, once it's set up it damn hard to make it suffer the equivalent of "Windows rot", but I figure the issues with Windows are somewhat overblown and entirely manageable with a little knowledge.

 

Everything is manageable, but why do you have to waste resources with Virus scanners, defragmentation...in the first place?

As to "Windows rot", why should you reinstall your OS every 6 months? With a *nix that isn't necessary.

[GFree]

I tend to be skeptical about that. I know people who definitely don't go to warez or porno sites and yet get their fair share of malware.

You don't have to go to such sites to get infected. A lot of people get drawn to those crappy "free games/wallpapers/cursors/screensavers" sites that ask you to download this little .EXE file first, which people seem strangely willing to do. I don't fall for such sites, because they immediately raise one's alarm bells about what's going to happen.

 

I say the major issues are with social engineering and the willingness of people to not take net security seriously. Then again, they do have to have the sense of knowing when downloading and running an .EXE is a bad idea, which is something that comes mostly from experience. Since most people are incapable of learning from their mistakes when using computers, I can certainly appreciate the benefits Linux provides in this area. I still reckon people with sufficient experience and knowledge should not have any (many) troubles in Windows though.

 

In Linux I have the occasional segfault with some apps, but it is hardly ever the entire OS which crashes.

And neither does Vista, believe it or not. Oh sure, with some really old software it's possible to FUBAR the system, but use up-to-date software and you'll be fine. One example that comes to mind was an older version of Alcohol 120%, but newer versions are fully compatible. On the other hand, I've had issues in Linux when running Compiz Fusion + NVIDIA drivers. There is a known problem when if you suspect/hibernate and attempt to resume, the screen will often appear black and not allow any response, forcing a hard reboot. The same problem sometimes occurs when changing resolutions (eg. run a game) or quick switch between a console and back to X. I'm not sure if there's a workaround, but it's damn annoying. Not sure who to blame (probably NVIDIA), but regardless this is still a big problem that hinders my ability to use Linux as it was designed.

 

I'll also give another example. With 64-bit Ubuntu, I found a problem with the Emerald window decorator which would very commonly segfault if the user tried alt-tabbing. It didn't always happen, but it was often enough that I had to submit a bug report at Emerald's Launchpad thingy. Turns out someone else had submitted a report and another person replied about having the problem too, but it had been around for a while and no-one from the developers group had even bothered to comment, much less mark it as anything other than Unconfirmed. Why bother submitting bug reports for what is a serious problem when no-one gives a {censored}.

 

Everything is manageable, but why do you have to waste resources with Virus scanners, defragmentation...in the first place?

As to "Windows rot", why should you reinstall your OS every 6 months? With a *nix that isn't necessary.

You need Virus checkers because most viruses are targeting for Windows. Computer viruses aren't a new thing, they've been around for ages, so why does Windows get all the flack? I'm not sure what else Microsoft can do at this point - UAC is rubbish and just gets annoying, but anything else to alieviate the issue of viruses/malware will require a rewrite of core components of the OS, which will probably cause even more problems for existing software. They're in a bit of a corner here. Linux has an advantage in requiring less maintenance, but you say it as if maintenance is a big deal. Scheduling such tasks is trivial, and bypasses the issue pretty much.

 

I know gamers who upgrade portions of their computers (if not core components) about once every year. To them, reinstalling means jack because they'll end up doing it anyway as part of the upgrade process. For regular people it doesn't matter; the system won't live that long because it will have become trashed due to malware before then.

[GFree]

DAMNIT DAMNIT DAMNIT!!!

 

I can't believe this. It's been countless years since I've suffered a virus/trojan myself, but just now, bang! I admit to having downloaded a torrent, although I had all the security measures ready and didn't expect anything. I then noticed after running the installer from the torrent (it was SiSoft Sandra, a system's diagnostic and reporting tool), that there were a couple of extra files in C:\, one of them called "exec.exe". I thought this was weird, so I tried deleting it - nope, the file was locked for being in use. Task Manager didn't report any entries for the program, but the program was definately running as another file "Exec" was growing in size every second. Searing for "exec.exe" on Google reporting it as... "W32/Spybot-Z Trojan". FFS.

 

What pisses me off more about this was the fact I thought I knew what I was doing (as per above postings), but this? This trojan was nothing like anything I've seen before - it was so stealthy it was able to run upon startup without having an entry in the processes, services or anywhere else. Msconfig didn't report it as a startup program. Looks like it was designed to hook into another system service and run from that, silently. Particularly dangerous little {censored}, had to boot into safe mode and delete it via command line.

So, two things I learnt:

 

(1) My virus checker didn't detect it (AVG).

(2) Even a veteran power user can fall victim.

 

Conclusion - something I've been doing for a while. If I have to use Windows, seek out open-source/truely-free tools that don't require cracks or come from illegal sources. I've heard about another tool that does something similar to SiSoft Sandra, and I know by using I won't suffer the problems of tricky trojans. This was an interesting experience. :censored2:

[Alessandro17]

Even a veteran power user can fall victim.

 

That is what I have always believed, sorry for you

 

I've heard about another tool that does something similar to SiSoft Sandra, and I know by using I won't suffer the problems of tricky trojans.

 

Everest? But it is not free...

[Mebster]

That is what I have always believed, sorry for you

Everest? But it is not free...

There is a free version of Everest looming on the net. Here.

[BlueAvenue]

On Dec. 3 Distrowatch featured an article reviewing 8 of the top linux distros. And they were each given a rating.

 

PCLinuxOS 2007 8.50

Open Suse 10.3 7.75

 

I'd say the dude is spot on.

Oh well

[InorganicMatter]

On Dec. 3 Distrowatch featured an article reviewing 8 of the top linux distros. And they were each given a rating.

 

PCLinuxOS 2007 8.50

Open Suse 10.3 7.75

 

I'd say the dude is spot on.

Oh well

While PCLOS may be a bit more flexible and powerful in the way that nix guys like their computers, I love openSUSE for it's simplicity. I had all but given up on Linux because it was such a pain in the ass for me to install my video card drivers. When I installed openSUSE, my eyes were opened as to how computing should be. I needed a video card driver, so I went to the openSUSE website, and there were two buttons: "Click here to install the latest NVIDIA drivers," and "Click here to install the latest ATI drivers." I clicked, typed in my root password, rebooted, and viola! I had full video drivers. Went back to the openSUSE website, went to Compiz, and pushed the button that said "Click here to install Compiz." Log out, log in, Compiz!

 

No other distro offers software installation that simplistic. Not even Ubuntu's synaptics package manager offers the simplicity and intuitiveness that openSUSE offers. That is why I love and use openSUSE for all my low-resource needs.

[Azurael]

On Dec. 3 Distrowatch featured an article reviewing 8 of the top linux distros. And they were each given a rating.

 

PCLinuxOS 2007 8.50

Open Suse 10.3 7.75

 

I'd say the dude is spot on.

Oh well

 

 

One thing you didn't note after reading the 'review' was that they gave Ubuntu 8.75, and Linux Mint 9.0, beating out both PCLinuxOS and OpenSuSE... :censored2:

[InorganicMatter]

One thing you didn't note after reading the 'review' was that they gave Ubuntu 8.75, and Linux Mint 9.0, beating out both PCLinuxOS and OpenSuSE...

 

I have heard really good things about Linux Mint, but to be honest, I'm so happy with openSUSE that I'll just stay there for this cycle.

 

Ubuntu...sorry, have to disagree there.

[Azurael]

Well it just seemed to me like he had 'forgotten' to mention the fact that they rated Ubuntu and Mint (which is an Ubuntu-based distro, incidentally) higher. I like Ubuntu, but I don't expect everybody to share that opinion.

[Alessandro17]

That DistroWatch review is very biased. I mean, come on, "A grand overview of popular desktop distributions" which doesn't even mention Mandriva? Or Debian?

Let's not forget that Mandriva (then called Mandrake) was the very first distribution to have ease of use as its main goal, and that it was #1 in DW Page Hit Ranking for several years.

As to SUSE I would give it a much higher rating, obviously, based on the reasons mentioned by InorganicMatter and many others:

1)Very stable and one of the most bugs-free.

2)Easy to install, at least in my (long) experience with countless computers.

3)Extremely polished desktop

4)YaST

5)Number of (quality) applications

6)It can be used by newbies and advanced users alike...

 

For me, SUSE 9.0 was already the paradigm of how any desktop OS should be.

[SDRacer48]

That DistroWatch review is very biased. I mean, come on, "A grand overview of popular desktop distributions" which doesn't even mention Mandriva? Or Debian?

Let's not forget that Mandriva (then called Mandrake) was the very first distribution to have ease of use as its main goal, and that it was #1 in DW Page Hit Ranking for several years.

As to SUSE I would give it a much higher rating, obviously, based on the reasons mentioned by InorganicMatter and many others:

1)Very stable and one of the most bugs-free.

2)Easy to install, at least in my (long) experience with countless computers.

3)Extremely polished desktop

4)YaST

5)Number of (quality) applications

6)It can be used by newbies and advanced users alike...

 

For me, SUSE 9.0 was already the paradigm of how any desktop OS should be.

 

Just a comment...

 

If DistroWatch had listed openSUSE as # 1, you would be saying how good of a review it was.

 

I think you are very biased.

 

Plus, does it matter what Distro of *nix you are using? No matter what you are trying to support the open source movement, you are enjoying the benefits of unix operating systems, and you are engaged in a fun, exciting community that will eventually (it will take time) revolutionize the way software is acquired and used.

 

Just an comment from a happy *nix user....

[Alessandro17]

Just a comment...

 

If DistroWatch had listed openSUSE as # 1, you would be saying how good of a review it was.

 

I think you are very biased.

 

That is actually not correct, because I said that the review was biased because they didn't mention Mandriva and Debian, not because openSUSE didn't get the best rating.

[Azurael]

To me, a very polished system is not one where I have to spend hours looking through tutorials just to get my hardware working. I know this is about stubborn FOSS principles and thus many distros refuse to include restricted drivers or non-FOSS firmware, but the fact is that to the majority of end users (and I'm not just talking about n00bs here. I know Linux. I know Unix, but I don't want to have to faff around just to get my computer to do basic tasks), a disto like Ubuntu is better.

 

Intel and Atheros wireless firmware is provided out of the box in Ubuntu, therefore, 99% of laptops become much more useful under Ubuntu than they are in other distros. Same goes for non-FOSS graphics drivers. Sure, most laptops have Intel integrated graphics which have FOSS drivers and work out of the box in Linux distros. The same can't be said of ATI (yet, though they're apparently open-sourcing their drivers?) or NVidia. Principles are all very well, but frankly, I have a computer because there are tasks I want to do with a computer, not because I want to make a socio-political statement.

 

Another thing is (correct me if I'm wrong, I refuse to install it again just to see) that AFAIK, KDE 3 still doesn't have any easy to use, seamless network management built in. That instantly makes it less useful than Gnome, regardless of what you might feel about the customisability (or lack thereof.) Gnome makes it a breeze to connect to secured wireless networks, store different proxy and VPN settings for different networks all built in. That's a PITA in KDE - even though there are now gui tools to assist in configuring WPA_Supplicant, they're clunky, unintuitive and not well integrated with the overall desktop experience.

 

I'm not about to start posting polls that suggest that SuSE, Mandria nor any other distro is, according to a random bunch of people on the internet, bad and evil for X reason. I don't have anything against other distros, only my experience using them, and I'm open to trying new things. However at the end of the day, to date, Ubuntu has been the most consistent, easily configured, non-bloated Linux distro.