Problem regarding Ubuntu

[Gorgonkernel]

Well back again with a question which stayed for a while in my head. I hear so many IT administrators and linux phreaks, in other words from the hardcore linux people that they don't recomand Ubuntu and they see it very bad because of it's markething procedures, in other words, something like Microsoft Windows-world domination. Why is this? And I talked to so many people who, trust me, have a lot of linux experience. What's with this global mediatization, shipping hardware with lots of Ubuntu dvd-s...why is this distribution very close to windows in therms of "next..next...next" Thanks and I hope I upset no one. I'm just curious about this subject.

[Temposs]

Ubuntu is maintained by a for-profit company called Canonical. Therefore, it has incentive to do what it can to make more money, within the constraints of the Ubuntu software ethics principles.

However, I don't know what your problem is with Ubuntu's publicity strategy. You didn't really say why you don't like it. Sending out free CDs with free software is a good thing. The more people are using free software, the more the culture of software cooperation expands, which is much better than Microsoft's closed proprietary methods.

Open-source software promotes a model of cooperation in the community and competition in the business world. Spreading Ubuntu is not like spreading Windows. It has a very different effect.

[warfacegod]

Cannonical is, at its heart, a corporation. It is a corporation's porpose to make money. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Ask yourself this. Is Cannonical involved in shady backroom deals? Are they trying to usurp Microsoft's place? Using the same underhanded business practices? Forcing deals upon manufacturers to have only their software on computers?

Maybe the folks you are talking to are saying this only because Ubuntu has become one of the leaders of the pack. That sort of attitude is very common in an "underground" sort of community. Look at music, for example. When ever a band or musical group gains some popularity, some or most of their original fan base accuses them of selling out, whether it's true or not.

Use your own judgment. Have you run into anything that makes thing your friends might be right? In fact, I suggest using the net to see for yourself. If you find anything, I'd be interested to see it myself.

I know one thing. The "screaming in my head", from Windows, went away the minute I first tried Ubuntu.

[J V]

Canonical is a corporation, in it to make money... So is mozilla, and they made 50 million a year by making google the default search.

The main reason this is kinda screwed up is because while ubuntu is 99% debian, shuttleworth made completely new bug repos and even new programs with them, meaning its doing double work quite a lot (In general, open source is supposed to get people to work together, it is this particular aspect that is similar to windows)

This crippled both debian and ubuntu (And makes ubuntu quite a leach in most peoples opinion)

Nevertheless it is the easiest to use, most dumbed down, most used, and freshest (6 month release cycle ftw!) distro available.

But for server, don't do it, use debian for server, stick to ubuntu forums for help :)

[Tamlynmac]

Gorgonkernel

Might I suggest you post this thread in the Community Cafe (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=11). Since your not specifically seeking assistance with an Ubuntu related support problem.

To have it moved, simply hit the report button and ask one of the mods to move your thread to the Cafe.

Good Luck and I hope this helps.

[nhasian]

I'm curious what distro they DO recommend? arch, slackware, debian? most people dont want to bother with learning how to compile software on their own so they stick with distros that make it easy to install software like Fedora's RPM and Ubuntu's DEB installation files. When you find a piece of linux software on the net its usually offered as the original source code as well as precompiled binaries for Fedora & Ubuntu as they are the most popular distros.


the hardcore linux people that they don't recomand Ubuntu

[J V]

Yes, the only easy-to-use distro that is completley open source is debian... The others are all company-based or call .tar.gz a package xD

[2hot6ft2]

Everyone likes whatever they like and so they prefer other distros of linux, but as for comparing it to MS and whatever "next..next...next" means.

I suppose they prefer Red Hat, which once upon a time was free but now they charge for it. Ah well, the University probably pays for it which means higher tuition from the students to pay for them to use it.

[Gorgonkernel]

Thank you for your replies, and please don't get me wrong. I don't I repeat DO NOT WANT TO INSULT NO ONE HERE. It's just a thing that interest's me. I respect very much Ubuntu and I use it. The people which I talked to recommend Gentoo, slack, Fedora. I'm not an expert but wouldn't be better to support Debian and contribute to that project instead of making a new one? This n distributions are confusing users in generally. I'm concerned about the future of linux....

Again, thanks for you replies, one thing that I've always loved is the community here. You rock! :)

[J V]

Ahh, wrong thread, srry...

[Gorgonkernel]

Ohh and sometimes I'm tagged as being a noob for using Ubuntu. :popcorn:

[warfacegod]

Is this going to turn into another "Let's focus on one kind of Linux so we can beat Windows" thread?

[warfacegod]

Ohh and sometimes I'm tagged as being a noob for using Ubuntu. :popcorn:

Everyone that uses Linux is a noob in one way or another.

[oldos2er]

Well back again with a question which stayed for a while in my head. I hear so many IT administrators and linux phreaks, in other words from the hardcore linux people that they don't recomand Ubuntu and they see it very bad because of it's markething procedures

There are plenty of companies that market open source software; Red Hat, just to name one.

Some of this prejudice seems to me to be sour grapes.

[saulgoode]

Well back again with a question which stayed for a while in my head. I hear so many IT administrators and linux phreaks, in other words from the hardcore linux people that they don't recomand Ubuntu and they see it very bad because of it's markething procedures, in other words, something like Microsoft Windows-world domination.

There is quite a bit of ground between not recommending something and seeing it as "very bad". There are also other reasons than its markething procedures which might recommend against Ubuntu -- e.g., premature incorporation of untested technologies and software, technical problems owing to adoption of proprietary software, corporate controlled governance structure, and a lack of community involvement in decision-making. Not to mention the unqualified fact that there are in general other attractive options available which may be more suited to the needs being addressed.

[Tibuda]

Well back again with a question which stayed for a while in my head. I hear so many IT administrators and linux phreaks, in other words from the hardcore linux people that they don't recomand Ubuntu and they see it very bad because of it's markething procedures, in other words, something like Microsoft Windows-world domination. Why is this? And I talked to so many people who, trust me, have a lot of linux experience. What's with this global mediatization, shipping hardware with lots of Ubuntu dvd-s...why is this distribution very close to windows in therms of "next..next...next" Thanks and I hope I upset no one. I'm just curious about this subject.
Elitism. That's why those guys don't want Linux to get easier.

[SuperSonic4]

Nevertheless it is the ...freshest (6 month release cycle ftw!) distro available.



hahahahahahah, good joke.

The freshest distros are rolling release by definition



Elitism. That's why those guys don't want Linux to get easier.

Nah, it ain't elitism. It's well known that amongst the Linux world that ubuntu is one of the most bloated by default except the minimal CD but even then deps mean unwanted software. Should ubuntu take over windows it will be a case of the king is dead, long live the king.

IMO there isn't that much difference now

[Tibuda]

Nah, it ain't elitism. It's well known that amongst the Linux world that ubuntu is one of the most bloated by default except the minimal CD but even then deps mean unwanted software. Should ubuntu take over windows it will be a case of the king is dead, long live the king.

IMO there isn't that much difference now

Ubuntu must be bloated by default to work on the most diversity of hardware/usecases out-of-the-box.

In my opinion, Arch packages are also bloated because they don't split source headers and binaries like Debian/Ubuntu. Arch's OpenSSH package is not splitted in client/server packages too, so I got a SSH server installed (but not running), altough I only need a client.

[SuperSonic4]

Ubuntu must be bloated by default to work on the most diversity of hardware/usecases out-of-the-box.

I can say Arch packages are also bloated because they don't split source headers and binaries like Debian/Ubuntu. Arch's OpenSSH package is not splitted in client/server packages too, so I got a SSH server installed (but not running), altough I only need a client.

Still makes it bloated though.

Yeah, every distro has it's fair share of bloat, just ubuntu has more than most. openSSH isn't that bloated compared to OOo