Ubuntu vs. Linux

[Simian Man]

First off let me say that I know the title is nonsensical. This is something of a rant, but hopefully I won't be flamed too badly for it :).

On these fora, and elsewhere on the internet, it seems that more and more people are mistakenly equating Ubuntu for GNU/Linux. People praise Ubuntu for features when they are actually features of upstream projects that Ubuntu simply packages.

On an average Ubuntu desktop, only a small fraction of what you see is provided by the Ubuntu project. The majority is the Linux kernel, X windows, GNU tools, Gnome desktop (or KDE or...) and the myriad applications that open source developers put their time into. Even things like dpkg, apt and Synaptic are provided by the folks at Debian. A few of the things that Ubuntu does provide include the installer, the "Add/Remove" application and the "Restricted Hardware" application.

And yet people still funnel all of their appreciation (or dissatisfaction) towards Ubuntu rather than the projects that deserve credit. People talk about feature requests for "Ubuntu" despite the fact that the features they speak of would need to be added to the kernel or Gnome or another upstream project. They talk about things like "Ubuntu Themes" or "Software for Ubuntu" or how to do X with "Ubuntu" when X has nothing to do with their distribution of choice.

Why is this? Is it because Ubuntu is many people's first distro? Do people see the orange Ubuntu boot screen and cling to it like a baby bird that mistakes a dog for its mother? Or is it because of all of the fuzzy feel-good talk about humanity on the home page? Is it something else?

This is not to say that Ubuntu sucks, or people shouldn't like it; I think Ubuntu makes a fairly good distro - though it isn't without its problems. I just think that there is a *lot* more to the world of GNU/Linux than just Ubuntu, credit should be given where it is due and frankly in my opinion, Ubuntu doesn't really do Linux justice.

So please if somebody asks what OS you are using, answer "Linux" and not "Ubuntu". If they want to try it, then suggest the Ubuntu variant if you wish, but make sure they understand the difference. And if you talk or write about Linux please try to learn what is responsible for what and not attribute everything positive to "Ubuntu".

OK rant over :).

[aysiu]

So please if somebody asks what OS you are using, answer "Linux" and not "Ubuntu". Except that Ubuntu is an OS, and Linux is a kernel in the OS.

I understand your frustration, but really the things that Ubuntu is cited as missing are, in fact, missing from Ubuntu. The end user doesn't know or shouldn't have to know what are Ubuntu changes and what are upstream changes.

Sure, people should get their terminology straight, but I think apart from that, there's not much else to say about the issue.

[Therion]

... Why is this? Is it because Ubuntu is many people's first distro?
I would hazard to guess that, yes, that IS the reason, at least primarily.

Combined with the fact that many users do not A)research the details of Ubuntu's "pedigree" - and if they DO in fact research the details - B) don't care.

[Twitch6000]

Finally someone speaks my mind :D.

Thank you very much for this thread =].

edit: @ aysiu well they could do as i do... Say I am using Linux The distro being(whatever distro they are using).

[JackieChan]

I understand where your coming from.

[SunnyRabbiera]

For Ubuntu its community that makes the glue of why Ubuntu is so popular, a lot of helpful people make up for what features Ubuntu has/doesn't have.

[cespinal]

maybe is just that Ubuntu was the first distro that hit the mainstream media with enough force to get the attention of the public.

So... I guess the public will know ubuntu as the Os that magazines and reviewers compared vista against, after all its failure (vista's).

Me... as being part of the general public and having no idea what linux really was a year ago, thought on precisely that: Linux must be some sort of cheap piece of software from communists/socialists. Ubuntu is the Os that's rocking Vista's feet!! lemme have a look at it!!!!.

A year after... I name myself as a Linux user... but it takes spending some time learning about this new world.

[Vince4Amy]

On these fora, and elsewhere on the internet, it seems that more and more people are mistakenly equating Ubuntu for GNU/Linux. People praise Ubuntu for features when they are actually features of upstream projects that Ubuntu simply packages.

That is one of the things that annoys me the most in Linux communities.


And yet people still funnel all of their appreciation (or dissatisfaction) towards Ubuntu rather than the projects that deserve credit. People talk about feature requests for "Ubuntu" despite the fact that the features they speak of would need to be added to the kernel or Gnome or another upstream project. They talk about things like "Ubuntu Themes" or "Software for Ubuntu" or how to do X with "Ubuntu" when X has nothing to do with their distribution of choice.

Also consider that Canonical don't give back many changes to upstream.


This is not to say that Ubuntu sucks, or people shouldn't like it; I think Ubuntu makes a fairly good distro - though it isn't without its problems. I just think that there is a *lot* more to the world of GNU/Linux than just Ubuntu, credit should be given where it is due and frankly in my opinion, Ubuntu doesn't really do Linux justice.

Yeah you're right, I've had loads of people say that Linux is crap because they tried Ubuntu, for example there are some real silly bugs in Ubuntu which are not present in for example Fedora.

Also things that annoy me are when for instance someone says "Linux doesn't have GUI Admin tools" most of the time they've only used Ubuntu and never heard of OpenSuSE's YaST.

[billgoldberg]

I understand your frustration.

[Twitch6000]

maybe is just that Ubuntu was the first distro that hit the mainstream media with enough force to get the attention of the public.

So... I guess the public will know ubuntu as the Os that magazines and reviewers compared vista against, after all its failure (vista's).

Me... as being part of the general public and having no idea what linux really was a year ago, thought on precisely that: Linux must be some sort of cheap piece of software from communists/socialists. Ubuntu is the Os that's rocking Vista's feet!! lemme have a look at it!!!!.

A year after... I name myself as a Linux user... but it takes spending some time learning about this new world.
Excuse me if I am wrong,but I think Mandrake(Mandriva) was the first to make a big impact on the average people >.>.

[Vince4Amy]

Excuse me if I am wrong,but I think Mandrake(Mandriva) was the first to make a big impact on the average people >.>.

It's not any more though, the difference with Mandrake was that it had some things back then that Ubuntu is still missing now, like the control centre for example.

[bryonak]

As aysiu pointed out, Ubuntu is an operating system, Linux is it's kernel.

Saying that you run Linux gives as much credit to X, Gnome, OpenOffice, ... as saying that you run Ubuntu.
Apart from that, what if I'm running Debian GNU/Hurd? I'm still running Debian, and I'll refer to it as Debian since this is what it is. Not Linux.

So we either say "I run GNU + Linux + X11 + Firefox + OpenOffice + ..." or we call it by the distributions name, which sums up those packages.

I'm a great fan of "credit where credit is due" myself. But there's no easy way to solve this.
And there's "worse", for example Linux Mint... adding half a dozen python scripts and a new theme, then only mentioning Ubuntu for repository compatibility as if it were Mint's achievement certainly isn't due credit ;)

[Twitch6000]

It's not any more though, the difference with Mandrake was that it had some things back then that Ubuntu is still missing now, like the control centre for example.

This is true,but I have found some distros that are made from ubuntu like Linux Mint have a control panel.

Not as great as the Mandriva one,but it is a control panel.

@the above poster..

You know mint also has its own repo too right? It also has its own tools...

Heck I find what you said just what ubuntu is to debian >.>.

[Simian Man]

As aysiu pointed out, Ubuntu is an operating system, Linux is it's kernel.

Saying that you run Linux gives as much credit to X, Gnome, OpenOffice, ... as saying that you run Ubuntu.
Apart from that, what if I'm running Debian GNU/Hurd? I'm still running Debian, and I'll refer to it as Debian since this is what it is. Not Linux.

So we either say "I run GNU + Linux + X11 + Firefox + OpenOffice + ..." or we call it by the distributions name, which sums up those packages.
Yeah the naming thing is tricky no matter what. Hence the GNU/Linux vs. Linux argument. I think that both names are way better than distribution names though. Just because Ubuntu is the most popular distribution at the moment (and it only has a plurality - not a majority), doesn't mean it should be the name that is used. To me "Linux" is the best name since it is simple and has been commonly used since the beginning. Heck "Ubuntu" has only existed since 2004!


And theres "worse", for example Linux Mint... adding half a dozen python scripts and a new theme, then only mentioning Ubuntu for repository compatibility as if it were Mint's achievement certainly isn't due credit ;)

I agree with you there.

[forrestcupp]

@ the OP
If you're going to be that nitpicky, then you need to change the title of this thread to "Ubuntu vs. GNU/Linux". If you're uptight about terminology, then you should get it right yourself.

Every distro out there takes upstream things and packages them into their own OS. Yet not all distros are equal. The reason people have praise for Ubuntu isn't because they did a good job developing everything, but because they did a great job packaging everything together in a way that it works seamlessly without screwing everything up. You can't say that for all distros.

I agree that everyone involved deserves their credit, but Ubuntu does deserve a lot of credit for putting it all together for us in a painless way.

[Twitch6000]

The reason people have praise for Ubuntu isn't because they did a good job developing everything, but because they did a great job packaging everything together in a way that it works seamlessly without screwing everything up.

Say what...

I smell a fanboy....

If you ask me and many others Ubuntu has the worst Pulseaudio implementation... worst use of KDE and worst use of many other things...

I mean really saying that is just so wrong it is funny lol.

[bryonak]

@the above poster..

You know mint also has its own repo too right? It also has its own tools...

Heck I find what you said just what ubuntu is to debian >.>.

I've got a nickname, you know.

That remark was meant as a side note, not to take the thread off topic... but I'll try to clear up anyway.

Ubuntu forks the Debian repository, which it then maintains on it's own. It is more or less independant: if Debian were no more tomorrow, Ubuntu would be in a packaging hassle in six months, but it would work until then and after this they'd just have to start building their own packages instead of importing them. Feasible with their team, but simply more work.
Ubuntu gives Debian credit on this page (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian), and I have to say in a very respectful way.

Linux Mint has an additional custom repostiory. Like if I'd add the WICD repo to my current install. Or a PPA.
If Ubuntu were no more tomorrow, Mint would be broken... you could only install those few packages in their custom repository, but no security updates, core package fixes etc.
They mention Ubuntu on their about page (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php). When I looked the last time (last year), there was only the "compatible with Ubuntu's repositories" line... now at least they acknowledge that they're an Ubuntu variant. Although that is the only mention on Ubuntu on the site, and not at all comparable to the way Ubuntu mentions Debian on their page...

You see, it is not the same... comparative independance (from Debian) with lots of credit vs depending (on Ubuntu) and quite little credit...

[linuxuser21]

Good thing I picked the user name I did. lol.

[Twitch6000]

I've got a nickname, you know.

That remark was meant as a side note, not to take the thread off topic... but I'll try to clear up anyway.

Ubuntu forks the Debian repository, which it then maintains on it's own. It is more or less independant: if Debian were no more tomorrow, Ubuntu would be in a packaging hassle in six months, but it would work until then and after this they'd just have to start building their own packages instead of importing them. Feasible with their team, but simply more work.
Ubuntu gives Debian credit on this page (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian), and I have to say in a very respectful way.

Linux Mint has an additional custom repostiory. Like if I'd add the WICD repo to my current install. Or a PPA.
If Ubuntu were no more tomorrow, Mint would be broken... you could only install those few packages in their custom repository, but no security updates, core package fixes etc.
They mention Ubuntu on their about page (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php). When I looked the last time (last year), there was only the "compatible with Ubuntu's repositories" line... now at least they acknowledge that they're an Ubuntu variant. Although that is the only mention on Ubuntu on the page, and not at all comparable to the way Ubuntu mentions Debian on their page...

You see, it is not the same... comparative independance (from Debian) with lots of credit vs depending (on Ubuntu) and quite little credit...

Uhmm incorrect?

Linux Mint has I believe 6 repos for certain purposes.

I do think they use the ubuntu repos for security updates though.

Looking at the Linux Mint repos though at this link - http://packages.linuxmint.com/

They have a main,community,backport,import,romeo,and upstream repo.

So.. I think if ubuntu were to die they could make some changes and live >.>. Either that or they would switch to the Debian repos.

[Simian Man]

@ the OP
If you're going to be that nitpicky, then you need to change the title of this thread to "Ubuntu vs. GNU/Linux". If you're uptight about terminology, then you should get it right yourself.
If you notice, I did use GNU/Linux in the body of my posts. I use both interchangeably, but GNU/Linux is a bit awkward for every day conversation.


The reason people have praise for Ubuntu isn't because they did a good job developing everything, but because they did a great job packaging everything together in a way that it works seamlessly without screwing everything up. You can't say that for all distros.

I agree that everyone involved deserves their credit, but Ubuntu does deserve a lot of credit for putting it all together for us in a painless way.

Ubuntu got a reputation for being user-friendly more because it packaged Linux with the idea of being "for humans" - whatever that means - and because it burst on the scene during a period of great progress for Gnome and KDE than anything of its own doing. Once it got that reputation, it easily kept it because beginners stuck with it and promoted it.

Give other distros a fair shake and you will see Ubuntu isn't all that special.

[lvleph]

I have read all these "why do you like ubuntu" threads, and have noticed that many of the things named has everything to do with FOSS and Linux, rather than Ubuntu. Everything I like has to do with stuff taken from Debian, however there is the community that use to be very helpful and has become less helpful as of late.

I am not sure what else is attractive about Ubuntu; I guess it is the support for laptops. Then again, the last time I tried a different distro was 4 years ago. I look at the other distros and don't see a reason to change.

Anyway, I have noticed that Ubuntu gets a lot of credit for just packaging things.

[Patrick Snyder]

but GNU/Linux is a bit awkward for every day conversation.
I think you partially answered yourself. Yes, we can say, "I use Linux." But it's not very specific. In a way, it's like saying, "I use Microsoft." We wouldn't know if it's XP, Vista, etc.

So to be precise in our speech, we'd have to say something like, "I use a version of Linux called Ubuntu". But that's a little awkward. So most people just say "I use Ubuntu".

The people who know about Linux, know that 'Ubuntu' means 'the ubuntu distro of Linux'. It doesn't have to be said. For the people who don't know about distros, you would either have to explain what distros are, be unspecific about the distro and simply say 'Linux', or be more specific and say 'Ubuntu'. Though it may not give proper credit, it is the least awkward choice for every day conversation.

[Name change]

I think the major problem is when third party software has three install packages:
.exe for Windows
whatever they use on MAC
and .deb for Ubuntu (Linux)
Yes I agree that compiling from source is a pain and Ubuntus popularity and
distros that are based on it are a big reason on why .deb is used.

And pleas don't go off-topic starting abuot which package management is the best.
The problem is that there are many other distros out there that are as big as Ubuntu (Like Fedora) which use other package and package manager (.rpm)
Or there are still other smaller distros with their packet managers like Arch and etc.
And yes a third party software provider can't make every possible package for Linux. And yes with "dawn" of ubuntu many Linux users are not contended that they should compile things them selves.
So yes that's one of problems.

The other is off course what OP more explicitly implied that Ubuntu is given all the credit when to put it sarcasticaly they just took Debian bleeding edge packages and installed them. Yes I know that ubuntu isn't just a friendly Debian, but I hope I'm getting the point through.
If you have to give credit to why Ubuntu is such a good distro give it where it's due to developers of software that it use. And off-course to Ubuntu devs; they have a big role non the less. They differentiate Ubuntu from other distros, Ubuntu still uses same basic principles as gentoo or Arch, but it's far more new-user friendly than those two (well depending on what user demands).

Oh And I personally think that using GNU(Linux is silly it's like saying I'm using Microsoft/Windows/XP/explorer.exe/... or something like that.

[mamamia88]

ubuntu sounds cool linux sounds geeky

[Yashiro]

Just accept that Ubuntu has alot of momentum at the moment which means more Linux adoption.

Word of mouth and this heavy traffic 'noob' forum is a big part of the popularity. Contrast this with other forums and the elitist attitude that pervades in many of them. Whining about this instead of using it to the fullest is why Linux remains the domain of anti-social nerds.

Ubuntu is by no means the be all and end all of Linux, but for new and experienced users it offers a good compromise of many things.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I think you partially answered yourself. Yes, we can say, "I use Linux." But it's not very specific. In a way, it's like saying, "I use Microsoft." We wouldn't know if it's XP, Vista, etc.

Agreed, and most people I know say "I use Windows", when they are using Microsoft Office or OpenOffice, GIMP or Photoshop, IE or Firefox, etc.

I understand what they mean when they say "I use Windows". If I actually care, then I will ask, "what office suite do you use", and so on.

[Vince4Amy]

Most apps are provided in .deb and .rpm and a lot of commercial apps are provided in .rpm over .deb. OpenSource apps traditionally come with the source code and my favourite, a Slackware .tgz package.

It's not a question of package management though and I feel Ubuntu really offers nothing over some other distros such as Fedora which do the same thing but do it quicker and with less bugs, not to mention whilst using less resources. I think that Ubuntu is ultimately sheilding newer users from ever using something such as Fedora where it uses less memory with the same apps. Webcam works even though it has the same kernel version for example.

Also taking Fedora as an example again here, is developed by Red Hat + Community and most if not all changes in Fedora are contributed back to mainstream, Ubuntu merely packages applications from Debian together whilst not really giving anything back.

[swoll1980]

I would like to know how people know what distros send what upstream, because I for the life of me can't find it.

[Simian Man]

ubuntu sounds cool linux sounds geeky

That is debatable to say the least.


Word of mouth and this heavy traffic 'noob' forum is a big part of the popularity. Contrast this with other forums and the elitist attitude that pervades in many of them. Whining about this instead of using it to the fullest is why Linux remains the domain of anti-social nerds.

I don't know. This forum seems to have a lot of zealous "death to microsoft" types to me. The only other Linux forum I frequent, the Fedora Forums, is much more moderate over all. The last Linux elitist postings I saw were definitely on this forum (albeit this forum is way busier).


Agreed, and most people I know say "I use Windows", when they are using Microsoft Office or OpenOffice, GIMP or Photoshop, IE or Firefox, etc.

I understand what they mean when they say "I use Windows". If I actually care, then I will ask, "what office suite do you use", and so on.

The difference is that nobody says "Windows is great because of OpenOffice and Firefox and Photoshop" when those things have nothing to do with Windows. People *do* say that Ubuntu is great for reasons unrelated to Ubuntu.

[Simian Man]

I would like to know how people know what distros send what upstream, because I for the life of me can't find it.

Well for the kernel, you can see this page (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php) (scroll down near the end). You can see Red Hat and Novell are the top two (after None and Unknown).

[bryonak]

@ Simian Man:
Your last point is true, but then again, calling it Linux doesn't really fix the issue. Torvalds isn't responsible for Firefox either ;)
Granted, it does have at least some identification value with the "movement", which leads me to the suggestion of calling it FOSS (yeah, sounds... interesting).


The following is just chitchat, so feel free to ignore if you're interested only in the topic...


Most apps are provided in .deb and .rpm and a lot of commercial apps are provided in .rpm over .deb. OpenSource apps traditionally come with the source code and my favourite, a Slackware .tgz package.

It's not a question of package management though and I feel Ubuntu really offers nothing over some other distros such as Fedora which do the same thing but do it quicker and with less bugs, not to mention whilst using less resources. I think that Ubuntu is ultimately sheilding newer users from ever using something such as Fedora where it uses less memory with the same apps. Webcam works even though it has the same kernel version for example.

Also taking Fedora as an example again here, is developed by Red Hat + Community and most if not all changes in Fedora are contributed back to mainstream, Ubuntu merely packages applications from Debian together whilst not really giving anything back.

Since when is .tgz Slackware specific? :P

Also you have quite some accusations there... could you back it up with facts? Especially that Ubuntu doesn't contribute back while Fedora does.
And then, contribute back to whom?
Fedora gives code to RedHat because that's what it's there for. But does Ubuntu really commit less to non-RedHat, non-Canonical upstream than Fedora? Note that I specifically mention Fedora itself, not the commits from RedHat.

Next point... why is Ubuntu preventing anyone from using another distro? Because of it's popularity? That obviously has a reason.
In my experience, Fedora is a bit lighter while Ubuntu is a bit more user friendly... for a given value of user friendliness of course (for example tracker and other resource hogging services). It also has better laptop hardware support AFAICT, but I think that one varies greatly.

And then portraying Fedora as simply better in every aspect than Ubuntu is a bit irrealistic, isn't it? Canonical's devs aren't stupid...

Yay, just started another argument about buntu vs dora ;D
Hmm... maybe we should continue over PM, if you enjoy a discussion. Just so not to clutter up the thread.

[aysiu]

That is debatable to say the least. I'll believe it's debatable when the Celtics start winning games by chanting Linux


I don't know. This forum seems to have a lot of zealous "death to microsoft" types to me. The only other Linux forum I frequent, the Fedora Forums, is much more moderate over all. The last Linux elitist postings I saw were definitely on this forum (albeit this forum is way busier). That's the not kind of elitism that was being talked about in the post you quoted. It was about being hostile or disdainful of new Linux users who aren't as knowledgeable as more experienced users (RTFM, etc.). Nothing was mentioned about anti-Microsoft sentiment.


The difference is that nobody says "Windows is great because of OpenOffice and Firefox and Photoshop" when those things have nothing to do with Windows. People *do* say that Ubuntu is great for reasons unrelated to Ubuntu. Well, actually, they do. They say Windows is great because is has better hardware compatibility or more software available. That has nothing to do with Windows being great. That has everything to do with vendors knowing that not supporting the OS with the hugest marketshare is financial suicide. Even Apple knew to port iTunes to Windows or face the iPod fading into obscurity.

[simtaalo]

Also you have quite some accusations there... could you back it up with facts? Especially that Ubuntu doesn't contribute back while Fedora does.
And then, contribute back to whom?
Fedora gives code to RedHat because that's what it's there for. But does Ubuntu really commit less to non-RedHat, non-Canonical upstream than Fedora? Note that I specifically mention Fedora itself, not the commits from RedHat.


according to main kernel dev's its very true http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3385088017824733336

the earlier talk which they reference in this video i made a thread about when i saw it http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=997922

[swoll1980]

Well, actually, they do. They say Windows is great because is has better hardware compatibility or more software available. That has nothing to do with Windows being great. That has everything to do with vendors knowing that not supporting the OS with the hugest marketshare is financial suicide. Even Apple knew to port iTunes to Windows or face the iPod fading into obscurity.

You beat me to it. Microsoft constantly gets credit for things they have nothing to do with, people do say things like "Microsoft is great because I can use Photoshop, or I can play Doom III"

[swoll1980]

Well for the kernel, you can see this page (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php) (scroll down near the end). You can see Red Hat and Novell are the top two (after None and Unknown).

What about other packages, programs, projects, DEs, and such?

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

The difference is that nobody says "Windows is great because of OpenOffice and Firefox and Photoshop" when those things have nothing to do with Windows. People *do* say that Ubuntu is great for reasons unrelated to Ubuntu.

I guess your experiences are different than my own. The people I encounter don't know the distinction between the OS and the applications running on it. They do think Windows is great even though they are using Lotus Symphony or OpenOffie.

These same people would be disappointed if they download Windows 7 themselves, and install it. There are few applications that they are accustom to having with a pre-installed OEM version of Windows.

[MikeTheC]

I guess your experiences are different than my own. The people I encounter don't know the distinction between the OS and the applications running on it. They do think Windows is great even though they are using Lotus Symphony or OpenOffie.

Heck, OGW, for that matter, there's plenty of people out there who can't distinguish between Windows and the computer itself, or software and hardware generally. It strikes me that many people in this world have very poorly developed abstract reasoning skills, to say nothing of their analytical reasoning skills. Frankly, from my years dealing with people in the computer world (both "professionals" as well as mom-n-pop customers), nothing surprises me. Nothing at all...

[castrojo]

That is one of the things that annoys me the most in Linux communities.
Also consider that Canonical don't give back many changes to upstream.


This isn't true at all, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

[bsharp]

People call Windows Windows, not NTOSKRNL.exe

The features may be provided by the kernel, but it is collectively the OS that allows it to work.

[BGFG]

Firstly, let me say that I don't believe any of the GNU/linux developers do what they do for pats on the back and such. If that were a huge factor then projects like KDE would have crawled into a hole and died due to the volume of negativity aimed at it.

That aside, I think that Ubuntu has a valuble role right behind distros like Fedora. The majority of distributions that exist today are repackaged goods anyway and i see no fingers pointed at Sabayon, Nexenta, DreamLinux, CrunchBang, Chakra and hundreds of others.

Ubuntu is simply easy to aim at because it is the most popular currenty in our little niche. Ubuntu is doing a great job of introducing users worldwide to GNU/Linux and FOSS and representing the community admirably in terms of stability and user-friendliness.

And i think that is it's purpose. A great introduction to GNU/Linux. many users stay, Ubuntu meets all their needs. Many others move on to distro's that meet their needs and tastes as they mature as linux users, Ubuntu having served it's purpose.

i for one accept Ubuntu for what it is and greatly appreciate the Fedora project especially for their trailblazing efforts. But the upstream/cutting edge environment is no place for noobs and the Fedora devs pull out all the stops :P how they manage to stay stable is a feat of software engineering. Seriously though, Allow Ubuntu to do it's job. What's the point of kicking our own team member in the shins ?

[forrestcupp]

Say what...

I smell a fanboy....

If you ask me and many others Ubuntu has the worst Pulseaudio implementation... worst use of KDE and worst use of many other things...

I mean really saying that is just so wrong it is funny lol.Not really a fanboy here. I'm mostly a Vista user. I was just pointing out why people give props to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is known for being a Gnome distro, so who really cares about their KDE implementation. And Pulseaudio is pretty much worked out by now, so that's kind of old news.

You seem kind of like a Mint fanboy. But there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with people liking Ubuntu.



Ubuntu got a reputation for being user-friendly more because it packaged Linux with the idea of being "for humans" - whatever that means - and because it burst on the scene during a period of great progress for Gnome and KDE than anything of its own doing. Once it got that reputation, it easily kept it because beginners stuck with it and promoted it.

Give other distros a fair shake and you will see Ubuntu isn't all that special.
I'm not saying there aren't any other good distros. But Ubuntu got where it is for a reason. Sure there are distros that are just as good, but then there are a lot that aren't nearly as good.

Again, my purpose was to point out that there are legitimate reasons for people to give props to Ubuntu beyond just Add/Remove and things like that.

[issih]

Its just a shorthand as far as I'm concerned. Saying I use linux is no more informative than I use ubuntu. You'd need to state kernel version , audio sound subsystem, window manager/desktop environment not to mention a million other bits of software to truly give credit to the people who deserve it. That's simply too unwieldy for everyday use, and the thing that most accurately describes the majority of what I use is the term ubuntu, as that includes gnome, open office, firefox, etc as well as the kernel.

People not understanding what comes from where is not something that can be controlled, ignorance is rampant (and worryingly lauded in large parts of current society) and the ignorant will always attribute things to the wrong developers, but that is not relevant to what I choose to call the software I use imho.

People don't call a volvo a ford, a lexus a toyota or a bugatti a volkswagen..they are, make no mistake, under the skin they have tons of technology from their parents, but the easiest way to tell people what you have is the most specific term, if they don't understand what that means, that is their fault, not mine.

[kikoman]

pfff Sibling Rivalries.

[Simian Man]

You beat me to it. Microsoft constantly gets credit for things they have nothing to do with, people do say things like "Microsoft is great because I can use Photoshop, or I can play Doom III"

But that's different - they don't mistake Photoshop or Doom as features of Windows. Since they are downloaded and installed separately, they know they are using 3rd party software. What I was talking about is when people mistake 3rd party software, like Gnome, Firefox etc. for being part of Ubuntu.


People call Windows Windows, not NTOSKRNL.exe

The features may be provided by the kernel, but it is collectively the OS that allows it to work.
That isn't the best analogy. Linux refers to not only the kernel, but the complete set of software around the kernel - and has for many years before Ubuntu existed. Look at the wiki page for Linux:


Linux ... is a generic term referring to Unix-like computer operating systems based on the Linux kernel.

That is the common usage. Describing oneself as an "Ubuntu user" over "Linux user" seems to be a new trend that I haven't seen from other distros.


This isn't true at all, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
They do some work (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Website/Content/UbuntuContributions) upstream, but it sure as heck isn't as much as Red Hat (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions) or even Novell (OpenOffice, Mono and its apps, the kernel and X). Some of Canonical's projects are even propietary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.#Proprietary_projects). I am not bashing Canonical/Ubuntu for this, but it is a bit funny that Red Hat and Novell get so much flak here for trying to "commercialize" Linux - what a laugh.

I guess Ubuntu getting so much credit for making Linux "usable for all" irritates me since it was largely the evolution of upstream projects that made Linux so nice. Add to that how Ubuntu and its users promote this idea and use the name "Ubuntu" over "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" which have at least been the popular name for the operating system for years before Ubuntu even existed.

[BGFG]

i still don't get it SimianMan, hundreds of distros do the exact same repackaging and you take no issue with them, but Ubuntu does one of the best jobs and you want more credit given than help>>About ?

Ubuntu can't be like the red hat or novell distros, things would break more often and GNU/Linux would not be making the inraods we see today. You're asking for canonical to itemize each package that Ubuntu uses and ensure that potential end users understand the concept of GNU, FOSS, Linux and know who is responsible for the creation of each package. I thik that is unreasonable.

[castrojo]

They do some work (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Website/Content/UbuntuContributions) upstream, but it sure as heck isn't as much as Red Hat (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions) or even Novell (OpenOffice, Mono and its apps, the kernel and X). Some of Canonical's projects are even propietary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.#Proprietary_projects). I am not bashing Canonical/Ubuntu for this, but it is a bit funny that Red Hat and Novell get so much flak here for trying to "commercialize" Linux - what a laugh.

I was responding to "Also consider that Canonical don't give back many changes to upstream" which isn't true because that would be in violation of the GPL, a pain to maintain, and not Ubuntu best practice. Patches to debian are maintained at http://patches.ubuntu.com/


I guess Ubuntu getting so much credit for making Linux "usable for all" irritates me since it was largely the evolution of upstream projects that made Linux so nice. Add to that how Ubuntu and its users promote this idea and use the name "Ubuntu" over "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" which have at least been the popular name for the operating system for years before Ubuntu even existed.

I think you're overgeneralizing. I've never given "flak" to Red Hat or Novell nor claimed that Ubuntu invented these things yet you say that "Ubuntu and its users" promote this idea. There are 65,815 active users on this forum (791,303 total) and yet you're painting everyone with the same brush.

btw I say "Ubuntu" and not linux because I use the entire OS, not just one aspect of it, when people ask me what car I drive I say "Grand Prix" not "a 3.8 liter V6 with a car wrapped around it"

[mips]

Ubuntu can't be like the red hat or novell distros, things would break more often and GNU/Linux would not be making the inraods we see today.

Wonder how corporate users feel about that statement seeing that is what most of them are using?

[Mehall]

Wonder how corporate users feel about that statement seeing that is what most of them are using?

I think he's only counting the free ones of those.

E.g.

OpenSUSE or Fedora

[BGFG]

I think he's only counting the free ones of those.

E.g.

OpenSUSE or Fedora

thanks... :)

[Simian Man]

I'll believe it's debatable when the Celtics start winning games by chanting Linux

Well then let's just call Linux "Disney". That way when people use the word in the original sense, we can pretend it applies to us!


OpenSUSE or Fedora

I have found OpenSuse and Fedora to be just as bug-free as Ubuntu, but this thread isn't about that.


I think you're overgeneralizing. I've never given "flak" to Red Hat or Novell nor claimed that Ubuntu invented these things yet you say that "Ubuntu and its users" promote this idea. There are 65,815 active users on this forum (791,303 total) and yet you're painting everyone with the same brush.
You're right, sorry about that.

I am just sick of Ubuntu getting such lavish praise when it is no different than other distros that do essentially the same thing, often times better. I suppose the reason people are so confused about what Ubuntu actually is is because they are new to Linux. The distro even makes things more confusing by, for example, parading Kubuntu and Xubuntu around as if they were different systems.

Anyway call your system what you want, I don't care. I post on these forums to help new Linux users, but the Ubuntu fan boys get on my nerves too much. I'm leaving :).

[aysiu]

Well then let's just call Linux "Disney". That way when people use the word in the original sense, we can pretend it applies to us! The original assertion was that Ubuntu sounded cool and Linux sounded geeky. So, yes, if we called our distro Disney it would still sound cooler than Linux... just to a different crowd.

[bryonak]

I am just sick of Ubuntu getting such lavish praise when it is no different than other distros that do essentially the same thing, often times better. I suppose the reason people are so confused about what Ubuntu actually is is because they are new to Linux. The distro even makes things more confusing by, for example, parading Kubuntu and Xubuntu around as if they were different systems.

Anyway call your system what you want, I don't care. I post on these forums to help new Linux users, but the Ubuntu fan boys get on my nerves too much. I'm leaving :).

Why are you so offended by this? Please don't take it amiss, but it looks like plain jealousy...

You are implying that other distributions are "better" like it were a fact (or maybe I just interpret that you don't state it as your opinion? It really comes over like this).
This is in stark contrast to both the popularity of Ubuntu (well, the most popular isn't always the best, but it's a good hint) and what one can read about the stability and bug-freeness of, for example, Fedora (it has it's fair share of frustrated users).

Almost every other distro has more clued up average users than Ubuntu, that's why their forums aren't full of "silly" bugs. That's also why more bugs get noticed (Lemma to Linus' Law).
And every bug fixed in a single other distro but not in Ubuntu is ferociously pointed out by those who look for it.

Interestingly, I've seen very much Ubuntu bashing on those ubuntuforums recently... quite a deal more than Microsoft hate or other distribution bashing, if I judge by the last 3-4 days in the Cafe.


To touch the topic one more time:
Calling it Linux doesn't give much more credit than calling it a specific distro name. It just depends on what you see in that name...
If you think of Ubuntu as "the competition" or an entity where "I should be in it's position/have it's popularity", then of course you associate negative feelings with Ubuntu getting praise where it only merits a part of it.
But if you see Ubuntu as a distribution of GNU, Linux, X11, ... in a specific configuration, as I do, then I have no problems in giving credit to Ubuntu and by extension to everything it stands for. Tell that to new users who care, and those who don't won't care about giving credit anyway.

I also have no problem with calling it Linux, which is what I often do in conversation, where I use Ubuntu and Linux interchangeably. It's just that I find it ... silly to insist on people calling it Linux instead of Ubuntu... because then you really should call it GNU/Linux and not Linux alone in both writing and conversation. I don't see the need for such "strictness".