ubuntu not a real linux

[kane77]

I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??

[Rinzwind]

Ubuntu is built on Linux from Debian.

The 1 thing Ubuntu does different is the usage of "sudo" and "root" has been disabled. A TRUE user of linux would know WHY it's done like this and also know how to re-instate a root-account.

Your friend is wrong. But only due to lack of a bit of information ;)

If you want to impress him read this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RootSudo
and slap him next time. He DID install a user during install and the 1ST user is also your root-user: with that password you insert then you can do superuser tasks ;)
Simple: security comes 1st.

[sublime]

your friend is an a$$. thats all there is to it. i know a few people that cant stand ubuntu because its easy to use. i just dont listen to them.

[n3tfury]

What do you think..??

hi. i think your friend is an idiot.

[Kvark]

Lol, thats funny because...

The stereotypical Windows noob hates sudo and can't understand why it's there. And is also scared back to Windows by the fact that things can be done both in GUI and in CLI.

Your friend hates sudo and can't understand why it's there. And is also scared back to Arch by the fact that things can be done both in GUI and in CLI.

Your friend must be Joe Windows noob's long lost twin.

[zenwhen]

Your friend is ignorant, not stupid.

[sophtpaw]

I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??

Hi,

Well, i am a noob through and through and i love Ubuntu.
What i have heard is that Linux is just the kernel, albeit very important; but a kernel without the GNU is missing
That's why to call it GNU/Linux would be more accurate or just GNU even, but aguess that doesn't roll off peoples lips...
But, yea, nothing missing in Ubuntu its got the kernel and the opensource applications built around it:)

[paul cooke]

Lol, thats funny because...

The stereotypical Windows noob hates sudo and can't understand why it's there. And is also scared back to Windows by the fact that things can be done both in GUI and in CLI.

Your friend hates sudo and can't understand why it's there. And is also scared back to Arch by the fact that things can be done both in GUI and in CLI.

Your friend must be Joe Windows noob's long lost twin.

just wait until MS Vista hits the stores... there'll be wails of anguish from all the windows users having to enter a password to do the most basic of admin tasks... and then click through a whole storm of dialog boxes to do said task...

MS finally get around to dropping running as Admin by default and forcing a sensible security model upon their users... and completely losing the plot as to how to do it... :)

[Kvark]

Hi,

Well, i am a noob through and through and i love Ubuntu.
What i have heard is that Linux is just the kernel, albeit very important; but a kernel without the GNU is missing
That's why to call it GNU/Linux would be more accurate or just GNU even, but aguess that doesn't roll off peoples lips...
But, yea, nothing missing in Ubuntu its got the kernel and the opensource applications built around it:)
Yeah, Linux is only the kernel/core. GNU is everything from to the compiler to the desktop environment (GNOME = GNu Object Model Environment). So I'd say it is more accurate to call it "GNU" then to call it "Linux". But it doesn't matter what is more correct. "Linux" sounds cool while "GNU" sounds plain stupid and "GNU/Linux" sounds outright scary.

[richbarna]

I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??

You stick with Ubuntu, keep reading the forums and keep learning the wonderful world of Linux. After 5 years of Linux I am still a Newbie, nothing to be ashamed of.
Your friend is trying to act like he's some Linux-Guru-Hacker-Kid, my guess is that he is about 15 years old and needs to ask on a forum how to tie his own shoelaces.

My main pc has kde desktop with icons and shortcuts and all the pretty stuff, my laptop however is console command use only. You can choose this with any distro (pretty and easy to use/ or basic and good to learn).

Somebody who KNOWS linux, shows respect to ALL distros and ALL users.

You just stick to what you prefer ;)

[sophtpaw]

Yeah, Linux is only the kernel/core. GNU is everything from to the compiler to the desktop environment (GNOME = GNu Object Model Environment). So I'd say it is more accurate to call it "GNU" then to call it "Linux". But it doesn't matter what is more correct. "Linux" sounds cool while "GNU" sounds plain stupid and "GNU/Linux" sounds outright scary.

yeah, GNU/Linux is a mouthful. Some people are that pedantic though. I heard from some Richard Stallman groupies that if you don't say Linux then he really looses, but only totally...oh, well...nevermind

[Stormy Eyes]

What do you think..??

I think your friend is full of s---.

[djroadrash]

i read in kanotix forums from kano himself that there is a substatial diference in ubuntu's debian aproach, he said he tried to compile some of his own scripts and he couldn't, i cant really explain since im not really an expert, but his comment stayed with me, something like ubuntu is not using debian really clean, i like ubuntu a lot, and kanotix too.

[tseliot]

He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs...
The fact that he can't set up a root account (which you can do by typing just 1 command), etc. makes me think that your friend is far from being an expert (but that's not a guilt) and also that he didn't spend much time here on the forums or reading the wiki.

Oh, and another thing: there is no such thing as "a real Linux", apart from the kernel itself, which you can find at www.kernel.org.

[IYY]

Your friend obviously doesn't know much about *nix. A real pro feels comfortable in any *nix, not just his own distro of choice (which would likely be gentoo, not arch). But the fact that your friend doesn't have this experience yet is not his biggest problem. His biggest problem is that he doesn't have the *nix attitude: when he sees something different than what he's used to, he immediately says it sucks instead of trying to learn it and then make an unbiased decision.

[23meg]

What do you think..??
A lot us have some 1337 h4x0r friends who'd look down on Ubuntu or anything else in the open source world that gets very popular in a short period of time with prejudice in some form. It's best to explain the facts once, and then ignore.

[GreenfrogCT]

I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??

I think that if he doesn't like this distro and would prefer to use another, he should! As has been amply pointed out Ubuntu, by default, does not set up a root login account for security reasons - but allows a user whom either
A - Is experienced enough to know how to manage a secure system and when (and when not) to use the ROOT login . . .
B - Is running a server and the machine is never used under an X-Environment . . .
C - Is offended by the implication that they can't be trusted with ROOT . . .
D - Is clueless and doesn't understand the security risks associated with (in particular) a desktop user logging in as ROOT.
E - Some combination of the above
to create a root login by simply typing:

user@ubuntubox:~$ sudo passwd root

Is it a real Linux based distro now? :confused:

Linux is the Linus Torvalds kernel on top of which all of the GNu (and several GNu-like) operating environments are built. Ubuntu, based on Debian, runs on the Linux kernal, and thus is "real Linux". It is primarily oriented towards the desktop environment and has focused on being secure and user friendly. This is a good thing.

One of the long-running threads here, and everywhere that Linux is discussed is: "What is keeping Linux from becoming accepted as a desktop OS?" There are several factors, but one of the primary ones is that most Linux distributions are simply not accessible to non-technical users. Regardless of what you think of Bill Gates and Windows, a novice user who wants to create spreadsheets, use email, surf the web, burn CDs and DVDs, collect and manage digital pics, and listen to music can take a PC out of the box, load XP, plug in his or her hardware and use the darned thing without having a clue about what is under the hood, and without having to be told to "sudo gedit /etc/xcdroast.conf" in order to get a CDR drive working.

Ubuntu comes a long way toward solving that problem. It's not there yet . . . but we're getting closer.

So like I said in the beginning, I think that if he doesn't like this distro and would prefer to use another, he should!

:mrgreen: Ribbitt

[n3tfury]

A lot us have some 1337 h4x0r friends who'd look down on Ubuntu or anything else in the open source world that gets very popular in a short period of time with prejudice in some form.

most are script kiddies and really aren't black/white hatters - much less "leet". ignorant, uninformed, and uneducated.

[Stormy Eyes]

most are script kiddies and really aren't black/white hatters - much less "leet". ignorant, uninformed, and uneducated.

Don't forget insecure. The ones who brag are usually the ones with little to brag about.

[catlett]

http://www.mepis.org/node/9454 Let him argue with Mepis Linux. They are using an Ubuntu base instead of a Debian base for the next release of their distro. (I guess Mepis isn't goimg to be a linux system now?) Ask him what other distro uses his as a base.
Let him read an unbiased review http://spidertools.com/ubuntu_review.php
Or this review http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8754
Or if he recognises Linux Planet as a good source for linux infohttp://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/5729/1/ (these are older articles to let him see Ubuntu isn't Brand new and unheard of)
Remember just because someone is using a linux distro doesn't mean they are smart. There are close minded, uninformed linux users. Even though Microsoft has the bulk of them a few stumble over to linux.

[Christmas]

I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??
I think most of us, especially the ones that came from Windows, found Linux difficult just because the way things get done in Linux differ from the way they work in Windows. Let's take the mp3 and restricted formats problem into discussion: in Windows you nicely install the SO, then Winamp, then load your mp3 collection into Winamp and play it. On the other hand, in Ubuntu, the moment "reality hits you" is when you realize that mp3 are proprietary formats, you have to install codecs and you say "What is this non-sense?!". Of course your first opinion is wrong. But let's take another example. Say a TV-Tunner (I have what I have with TV-Tunners I like them :P). In windows there is no way of watching TV just with your OS installed. You have to install the drivers too and the player for you TV card. In Ubuntu my card was detected and I only had to install TVtime, and that was damn faster than Windows, believe me. And a lot easier. So I think same applies between Linux distros. Your friend probably rushed running into conclusions.

Well I'm a newbie and my second distro was Fedora Core 4. I used RH before just for a couple of days. I familiarized with rpm commands and yum and then HAHA switched to Ubuntu. Imagine me, standing in front of the terminal, watching the .deb file and trying the "rpm" command. :D Well of course it didn't work, but I didn't say Ubuntu is a toy Linux or whatever. Different distros, different styles.

[kane77]

Hey thanx for all those oppinions and ideas... That's what I like about ubuntu... this community of people that are willing to help or share word of wisdom...
I posted a comment (he actualy wrote it into his blog..) so I wonder what'd be his reaction to that...

[n3tfury]

Don't forget insecure. The ones who brag are usually the ones with little to brag about.

i knew i had forgotten something. \o>

[John.Michael.Kane]

kane77 when your friend if you can still call him that. untill he set's up LFS, and Gentoo with out asking anyone for help or looking up any howto's on any of the forums that deal with those two os's has more learning then complining to do. bottom line any os based on the linux kernel iscalled linux. if he does not like ubunt he can use something else. however to call ubuntu a lamers or newuser os or even to call it easy to use is just worng, and i'm sure anyone who has delt with any form of linux or hell even windows for the frist time would be cursing calling the os every name in the book. no OS is easy to use frist time out, and every OS even arch/gentoo/LFS has their own faults problems.

[aysiu]

So "real Linux" needs to use root and be difficult to use?
Well, your friend can define it however he wants--no one has to agree with that definition, though.

I think most would agree "real Linux" means the operating system uses the Linux kernel.

Some people say Will Smith isn't a "real rapper" because he's not gangsta or whatever. He is still a rapper, though.

[cotcot]

Arch is different from Ubuntu. This does not mean more or less linux than ubuntu More knowledge is advisable to get it working. I guess your friend means with "more linux" that you need to know more about linux to get it installed. An argument to do the effort for acquiring more knowledge and doing more effort is a more tailormade system. I he feels good by telling you that he knows more about linux than you no problem. Important for you is that you get with ubuntu an easy to install and serious linux system with a very active forum.

[mostwanted]

Some people say Will Smith isn't a "real rapper" because he's not gangsta or whatever. He is still a rapper, though.

AW HELL NAW!!

[KiwiNZ]

I really hope your friend does not join here and make those comments.The staff are busy enough now .The flamefest would fill the jail real fast.:p




I heard my friend (he's using linux for few years now... now he's using Arch linux) talking about how he was trying ubuntu and was complaining a lot... He had some troubles installing eth card because there was no root (passwd was not set) and was shacked to find out that it can be set up though networkin menu...
finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux"

What do you think..??

[kane77]

Some people say Will Smith isn't a "real rapper" because he's not gangsta or whatever. He is still a rapper, though.

I like this comparison... it's hilarious... :-D

[DSn0wMan]

I am pretty sure Ubuntu is real linux. From the CLI it looks pretty much the same as Red hat 7 (my first linux) IBM AIX (a pain in the but),or even gentoo (I am too lazy for that junk). Or maybe I have been dreaming for the past month. I mean everything did install really easy, and no compatibility problems with my laptop (minor miracle in my opinion).

I must be dreaming real linux cant work this good.

[MasonM]

Comments like your friend's are part of the reason many new Linux users get scared off quickly. The elitist attitude of some Linux users can be quite intimidating for a newbie.

I've been using Linux for a little over 11 years and have done everything from build my own distro from scratch to Ubuntu and everything in between.

If your friend couldn't figure out how to activate his root account (takes all of 3 seconds) or enable his NIC, he's obviously not as "elite" as he would like to thiink he is.

Ubuntu isn't the only distro I currently use, but it is the primary distro on my laptop, and last weekend I installed it on my desktop PC as well. Ubuntu is making great strides in taking Linux in the right direction and I'm proud to be a part of it.

The distro I use isn't the best because I use it, I use it because it's the best for my needs. That's what Linux is really about. All that elitest crap is for script kiddies and lamers.

[fuscia]

macho-geek: the new 'jumbo shrimp'.

[asimon]

You're friend is using, what a distro for professional super gurus and is not able to set up eth on Ubuntu? And then he complains about it that it can be easily set up through a menu by common people whithout the need of guru's like him?
It looks like your friend hasn't in the end as much knowledge about Linux as he thinks he has.

My definition: If it runs a linux kernel (even patched) it's linux. I dunno what a "unreal" Linux should be.

My expierience is that the more people (well, not everyone but many) know about Linux the less they use distros like LFS or Gentoo and the more they use distros which automate as much as possible and just work. Even if you know how to compile and configure everything by hand from a command line there should be more worthwhile things to spend your precious time on.

[Iandefor]

Your friend is ignorant, not stupid. Important distinction to make. Good on ya for making it.

finally he concluded that ubuntu is no real linux as it is mostly for lammers and noobs... I felt offended but knew not what to say... I don't feel like a lame or noob... It's true that ubuntu is easy to use but does that mean that it's not a real linux...?? Does it miss soemthing that is essenbtial for so-called "real linux" If your friend thinks that the use of a root account defines Linux-ness or not, I suggest he find out what a kernel is. As mentioned before, if he was unaware that it's still possible to use a root account on Ubuntu, even though it's disabled by default, then he still has a ways to go in terms of using Linux.

And ask him how his refusal to consult the documentation, go beyond the basic menu items, and to ask for help classifies him as anything other than a lamer.
Well, you could be more polite about it, but the idea is that he never gave Ubuntu a fair chance.

[easyease]

i thought ubuntu was more "mos def" than "will smith" :-D

[MetalMusicAddict]

i thought ubuntu was more "mos def" than "will smith" :-D
I get that and I agree. :) Mos is awesome.