TwoEars
July 12th, 2010, 04:07 AM
In light of recent events, when all my posts were deleted from a thread, where I stated nothing other than the truth, I have come to understand that this "community" is one which does not accept views of others, or in fact the facts, if they go against the almighty Ubuntu. Now, let me tell you children, Ubuntu is not the greatest operating system out there. Ubuntu is not even the greatest Linux distribution out there.
It has poor quality "developers", basically what they do is regroup a lot of software together in order to ship them out, and try to come up with "new" ideas which are horrible, and try to make things pretty. And that's fine. Except without proper developers, bugs do not get fixed, problems do not get solved, and as a result, you end up with the buggy mess that is Ubuntu. Now, I don't want to here your "it works for me!", because the problem is that Linux is so easily influenced by what software you have installed, especially those using apt-get and the debian packaging system. For example, you install Arora, you get an update, and all of a sudden, AWN might not work. Linux is also greatly reliant on the hardware you have, so the software which runs upon that hardware might not function the same on another computer, without say, the same chipset.
Now, Linux is a server operating system. One of the best in the world. It's used on many clusters because of the open-source model it is released under. It allows companies to quickly create a suitable operating system for their custom hardware in time which would otherwise take much longer. However, this doesn't make its problems go away. No stable updates patterns - any good admin maintains his own repositories in order to get around this. Should he have to do this? I don't think so. No stable API - this means no backwards compatibility with much-older versions, take a look at Windows for example - you can run any software while that architecture supports it. It also means that kernel updates brings crashes. Now, this is handled better in the more experienced distributions, RHEL, OpenSUSE, Fedora, etc. Not so much in the other distributions, such as Ubuntu. The reason for this is the developers. They do not know what they are doing. As such, Ubuntu contributes next to nothing to the upstream - when was the last time you saw Canonical making a valuable kernel submission?
Ubuntu aims for desktop use. Now, let me start by saying that Linux is first and foremost a server operating system. It is used on mobile devices, however Android is pretty much a kernel split. So why did they decide to use Linux in the first place? Because it is open source, which allows quick set up again, it has the greatest software support out the open source operating systems. It also helps that Google actually know what they are doing, why, the people at Google are amazing. Working amongst them, you soon find this out. Anyway, while Ubuntu aims for desktop use, they should realise that this simply won't happen in the mainstream. It's good that it's there to offer a choice, but they aren't going anywhere. This is NOT the year of the linux desktop, and it never has been, nor will it be while Linux remains in its current standards.
So where does that leave Ubuntu? The server market. Now let me tell you, if you're going to work in a proper work environment, you're not going to use something which lacks quality developers to make sure that the updates are shed out correctly. You're not going to use something which the entire work which has gone into it is being "unique" and switching the icons around or changing the theme. This does not help us. No, what we need is a distribution which has good, clever developers, which are able enough to commit to the kernel, and have them work and accepted. I'm talking about RHEL(including CentOS and Fedora) and SUSE. If you haven't used these, then you can not comment on the stability of Ubuntu in comparison. If you can not accept the fact that they are more suitable and better equipped for a work place environment, then I'm afraid you must be either knew to the Linux world or blinded by your own personal love for a certain distribution. That is all.
It has poor quality "developers", basically what they do is regroup a lot of software together in order to ship them out, and try to come up with "new" ideas which are horrible, and try to make things pretty. And that's fine. Except without proper developers, bugs do not get fixed, problems do not get solved, and as a result, you end up with the buggy mess that is Ubuntu. Now, I don't want to here your "it works for me!", because the problem is that Linux is so easily influenced by what software you have installed, especially those using apt-get and the debian packaging system. For example, you install Arora, you get an update, and all of a sudden, AWN might not work. Linux is also greatly reliant on the hardware you have, so the software which runs upon that hardware might not function the same on another computer, without say, the same chipset.
Now, Linux is a server operating system. One of the best in the world. It's used on many clusters because of the open-source model it is released under. It allows companies to quickly create a suitable operating system for their custom hardware in time which would otherwise take much longer. However, this doesn't make its problems go away. No stable updates patterns - any good admin maintains his own repositories in order to get around this. Should he have to do this? I don't think so. No stable API - this means no backwards compatibility with much-older versions, take a look at Windows for example - you can run any software while that architecture supports it. It also means that kernel updates brings crashes. Now, this is handled better in the more experienced distributions, RHEL, OpenSUSE, Fedora, etc. Not so much in the other distributions, such as Ubuntu. The reason for this is the developers. They do not know what they are doing. As such, Ubuntu contributes next to nothing to the upstream - when was the last time you saw Canonical making a valuable kernel submission?
Ubuntu aims for desktop use. Now, let me start by saying that Linux is first and foremost a server operating system. It is used on mobile devices, however Android is pretty much a kernel split. So why did they decide to use Linux in the first place? Because it is open source, which allows quick set up again, it has the greatest software support out the open source operating systems. It also helps that Google actually know what they are doing, why, the people at Google are amazing. Working amongst them, you soon find this out. Anyway, while Ubuntu aims for desktop use, they should realise that this simply won't happen in the mainstream. It's good that it's there to offer a choice, but they aren't going anywhere. This is NOT the year of the linux desktop, and it never has been, nor will it be while Linux remains in its current standards.
So where does that leave Ubuntu? The server market. Now let me tell you, if you're going to work in a proper work environment, you're not going to use something which lacks quality developers to make sure that the updates are shed out correctly. You're not going to use something which the entire work which has gone into it is being "unique" and switching the icons around or changing the theme. This does not help us. No, what we need is a distribution which has good, clever developers, which are able enough to commit to the kernel, and have them work and accepted. I'm talking about RHEL(including CentOS and Fedora) and SUSE. If you haven't used these, then you can not comment on the stability of Ubuntu in comparison. If you can not accept the fact that they are more suitable and better equipped for a work place environment, then I'm afraid you must be either knew to the Linux world or blinded by your own personal love for a certain distribution. That is all.