Ubuntu vs. Super OS

[gavdari]

Almost a newbie here, I was just wondering what are the differences between Ubuntu and Super OS? I am extremely happy with my current lucid, but I want to know if I can be happier migrating to Super OS? (I'm kinda greedy for happiness I guess!)

p.s. Besides any pros or cons, the name of Super OS seems cheesy to me. But let the name go, what is the REAL difference?

[flick]

Nice list of real differences at :

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Super_OS

Purely subjective opinion of mine : it is just a remastered Ubuntu with a bunch of stuff thrown in, with its own repository for a few extra packages of more or less value. I am a typical home user, find stock Ubuntu to be fast, pleasant, stable and secure. Your mileage may vary.

[gavdari]

From what I see, there is nothing more in Super OS that I can't add to my Ubuntu, except for it's own repository. So I guess there is no point in moving. thanks.

[Tibuda]

From what I see, there is nothing more in Super OS that I can't add to my Ubuntu, except for it's own repository. So I guess there is no point in moving. thanks.
Yes, it is just a remastered Ubuntu.

You can even add Super OS repository. It does not have anything you could not find elsewhere.
http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Super_OS_repository#Adding_the_repository

[AnRuaRi]

The main advantage of this distribution is taht it's quicker to set up for people who want everything to work out of the box without needing to go searching for Codecs that they already have on their old ******* PC.

I was recommended to look at it by some people who sell Ubuntu computers as they find it quicker to set up. (and easier than making their own install disk which does the same thing)

[Whistling Nixie]

The main advantage of this distribution is taht it's quicker to set up for people who want everything to work out of the box without needing to go searching for Codecs that they already have on their old ******* PC.
Well, the same can be said of Linux Mint. And it's more aesthetically appealing (although Ubuntu would be on an equal footing if the default wallpaper was different, and Clarity (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Clarity?content=135654) was the icon theme... although functionality is more important anyway).

[Erik1984]

Well, the same can be said of Linux Mint. And it's more aesthetically appealing (although Ubuntu would be on an equal footing if the default wallpaper was different, and Clarity (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Clarity?content=135654) was the icon theme... although functionality is more important anyway).

Problem with those icon themes is that they are often not complete. They include many popular programs but sometimes things are missing and immediately looks out of place with the default icon.

[BrokenKingpin]

"Super OS" has to be the worst distro name out there.

[Roasted]

The main advantage of this distribution is taht it's quicker to set up for people who want everything to work out of the box without needing to go searching for Codecs that they already have on their old ******* PC.

I was recommended to look at it by some people who sell Ubuntu computers as they find it quicker to set up. (and easier than making their own install disk which does the same thing)

I don't think I've installed Codecs for the last year and a half on Ubuntu and everything works OOTB. Maybe that little checkbox during the installer is what prevents me from needing medibuntu like I had done in previous releases??

[AnRuaRi]

I must admit, I havent carried out a Linux / GNU install for several years.
I remember it would take quite a wihile to pull all the necessary codecs together a few years ago, but for other reasons, after my Ubuntu machine caught fire, I didn't delete win-doze on the replacement computer.
(Yes the hard drive actually suffered from spontaneous combustion!!!... I had my coat on and the front door open to leave the house at the time - a few seconds later & I dont know what would have happened!)