Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm referring to. I'm specifically referring to rolling-release distros, of which LMDE is one. It's based on Debian-testing. Regular Mint is indeed a milestone-based distro built on Ubuntu. But LMDE is a rolling-release based on Debian-testing, with no relation to Ubuntu. That's specifically what I'm referring to. There are certainly other stable rolling-releases out there, but I…
> It's based on Debian-testing, which is more unstable than Debian-unstable Wrong. Testing is more stable than Unstable, which is more stable than Experimental. Furthermore, Ubuntu does extremely heavy modification to the Debian base, repackaging quite a number of it's core packages, and replacing a number of central parts at times (eg, the boot system). If you're going to say that people don't know what they're talk…
Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
81–90 of 129 posts
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#82Nope. Ubuntu won't be ready until upgrading Firefox (or any individual package) doesn't force insanity like opposite window controls or Unity without asking. Regular people aren't interested in seeing drastic and seemingly nonsensical changes like that for no reason, and almost certainly aren't interested in being part of some grand OS experiment. They want something that is consistent and works. While package manage…
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#83The last 6 months I was first forced to switch from Gnome2 to Unity because of Ubuntu 11.04 and that made me ditch Ubuntu. I had heard so many bad things about Gnome3 so I stayed away from ArchLinux and moved to Sabayon which still had Gnome2. One month ago Sabayon did an update to Gnome3 and after testing it for some time I decided to try Xfce (after the Torvalds post). I have spent so many hours tweaking and finding the source behind bugs that it nearly makes me cry.
There are so many small glitches and the only reason I stick with Linux on desktop is because it's free and it brings me freedom. That's the reason behind acceptance of all the glitches and mediocre user experience.
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#84Nope. Ubuntu won't be ready until upgrading Firefox (or any individual package) doesn't force insanity like opposite window controls or Unity without asking. Regular people aren't interested in seeing drastic and seemingly nonsensical changes like that for no reason, and almost certainly aren't interested in being part of some grand OS experiment. They want something that is consistent and works. While package manage…
> The only big one is Debian/Mint, but from what I hear that's still too unstable for even power users. You're forgetting about Arch, which is absolutely amazing. Simple, yet powerful.
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#85That said, Ubuntu has improved a lot and despite the grub issue, I still love Ubuntu. I have converted both my parents to Ubuntu and I haven't had a support call from them since the switch.
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#86Here's another anecdote. I have yet to use Ubuntu on a machine where everything just worked. I love Linux and use it every day. It's not ready for prime time but it is, as it has been for almost 20 years, a reasonable alternative for those willing to learn.
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're lucky enough to own a machine that works out of the box, with all of its components, while running Linux: all the power to you. I've owned many computers over the years, of all shapes, sizes, brands, and/or custom parts, and I've never had a single one "just work."
I've had it just work on a Fujitsu tablet, several Thinkpads, and a couple of HP laptops. And any desktop I've cared to try so far.
IIRC, the last time I had a hardware/driver issue that pissed me off to no end was back before Fedora even existed.
Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#88Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#89Re: Why Ubuntu Linux is now ready for primetime
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the major reasons I don't suggest Linux to anyone. There was a time I'd get people to switch from Windows to Linux; now I tell them to either upgrade to Windows 7 (if they're not on Windows 7 already) or get a Mac. I'm also concerned about three secondary issues. One, there is a lack of strong leadership in the Linux community. Shuttleworth is the only person who can shake things up, and whenever he do…
" There was a time I'd get people to switch from Windows to Linux; now I tell them to either upgrade to Windows 7 (if they're not on Windows 7 already) or get a Mac. " What's changed? " Shuttleworth is the only person who can shake things up, and whenever he does everyone whines as if Shuttleworth had caused them some grave personal injustice. " People get comfy in their distributions. When Shuttleworth dictates "des…
> What's changed?
Nothing much on the Linux side; Windows has just become better. Windows XP as I remember it was utter shit. Windows 7 is actually pleasant to use. I also got myself a MacBook in 2008, wrote many Cocoa applications, and found that the Mac was a better work machine than my Linux machine. So if someone can't afford a Mac, I tell them to use Windows 7. Otherwise it's time to hit the Apple store :)
> People get comfy in their distributions. When Shuttleworth dictates "design" decisions with the reasoning of "just because," and as a result many people no longer find their distribution of choice comfortable, can you really blame them for being pissed off?
Totally agreed. So can we say that not only does the Linux world lack leadership, the little leadership it does have makes terrible decisions? :p
> Fragmentation is inevitable in free software. People build what they want - you can't stop them, and you don't have to use what they make. The solution is not to provide the "one distribution to bind them all" and somehow dictate that everyone should use it, but to get the different ecosystems and environments following standards. They're doing that pretty well.
Once again you make a very good point. But I'm looking at this issue from a consumer's standpoint. The consumer wants to deal with one entity; he doesn't like fragmentation. In any case, these mostly identical distributions serve no purpose. Most of them have no reason to exist. Personally, when I want to use Linux -- and I do use Linux on servers because that is where it shines -- I default to Debian and pretend that nothing else exists. I'm not good at dealing with choice, and I believe the man on the street is almost as bad as I am.
> It seems you wish for the same universality for Ubuntu as exists for Windows and Mac OS X.
I do. I honestly do. Universality is a good thing. I know a properly written GTK+ app will run identically on every Linux machine out there, but there are still some very tiny incompatibilities, especially w.r.t. packaging and distribution. As an indie developer, I don't want to deal with that stuff. I just want to create a DMG/MSI, ship it and expect it to work for the next 5 years without issues. The universality of Windows and the Mac gurantees that.
Oh, one more thing: Windows and OS X let even bad developers bang out working applications. All their assumptions about their OS, their hardcoded paths, their assumptions about certain libraries existing at certain versions, all their bad code ... it all just works. Small point, but I think it's an important one. All of us were ignorant once :)
I know I'm going to sound like a crazy person here, but I just feel there is something very wrong with fragmentation. I don't know; it's just something I feel. I guess I probably am a crazy person ...
> Linus is (a) busy, and (b) has no clue about usability. He runs Xfce, for heavens' sake :)
Hey, Xfce is pretty damn good :)