Tried other distros yet keep coming back to Ubuntu.

[Starks]

I don't get it.

Is it because Ubuntu is so well-rounded or because other distros do certain things better and suck at everything else?

[Bachstelze]

Only speaking for myself, it's because spending hours to tweak your system is only fun for so long. Then someday you say "okay, enough goofing around, I want something that I can install in 15 minutes and get a functional system." And you can't beat Ubuntu with that.

P.S.: "Other distros" for me means Gentoo and Slackware, I've never tried the other "user-oriented" distros like OpenSuse or Fedora.

[el_koraco]

Guess none of them are all that much better, and you're used to Ubuntu and its particular set of strengths and weaknesses.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Two reasons:

There are other distros I liked better initially but they all had hardware issues on my 'puter that my Ubuntu and Xubuntu never had. Yet I have friends who swear that 'buntu balked on their hardware and others work fine. On my old hand-me-down Dell, 'buntu was trouble-free.

Second reason was that I spent the better part of two MONTHS trying to get Debian (Xfce, net-install) to work on my 'puter and get it just right - by the time I finished, it still had minor hardware problems, but the biggest surprise to me was that my custom-made, perfect-just-for-me mixture was very little different from Xubuntu! I thought, "Darn, I could have done this minutes instead of MONTHS, and with none of the hardware issues!"

That's what brings me back, over and over again.

-Robin

[Alwimo]

I am the same.

The messaging indicator is one thing I come back to Ubuntu for.

[johnnybgoode83]

I am the same. I have tried many different distros and DEs and I keep coming back to Ubuntu and gnome. I think the reason why is that I always find something missing in the other distros that I have tried. I can't actually put my finger on it but for me Ubuntu does everything I need it to do out of the box and with minimal tweaking.

[jeffathehutt]

I think Ubuntu is very well-rounded and is the most appropriate distribution for maybe 80% of linux users. Also, many linux users were introduced to Ubuntu as their first distribution. So there is always that nostalgic feeling you get when using it. :)

If you first learned the Ubuntu way, chances are you will keep coming back to it just to make things easy. ;)

[GWBouge]

Two reasons:

There are other distros I liked better initially but they all had hardware issues on my 'puter that my Ubuntu and Xubuntu never had. Yet I have friends who swear that 'buntu balked on their hardware and others work fine. On my old hand-me-down Dell, 'buntu was trouble-free.

Second reason was that I spent the better part of two MONTHS trying to get Debian (Xfce, net-install) to work on my 'puter and get it just right - by the time I finished, it still had minor hardware problems, but the biggest surprise to me was that my custom-made, perfect-just-for-me mixture was very little different from Xubuntu! I thought, "Darn, I could have done this minutes instead of MONTHS, and with none of the hardware issues!"

That's what brings me back, over and over again.

-Robin

Pretty much this. Even for other variants of *buntu. I really tried to like Kubuntu, Mint, Debian, etc etc ... but in the end, I'm just going to spend days trying to set them up to how I have Ubuntu working (visually + my preferred apps) in a couple hours. Ubuntu just fits me.

[Dustin2128]

I try to buy linux compatible hardware, so hardware being a non-issue, I don't like ubuntu any more having swapped over to arch a few months ago. Does everything I want, takes 5 minutes to setup, has the latest software available, and boots in 10 seconds.

[wolfen69]

Most distros work perfect for me, so it's just a matter of finding what I like. If ubuntu had a proper gnome 3 desktop, I'd probably be using it instead of Fedora. But in october, I'll probably be back on ubuntu on my main computer. I do though however, have unity on my netbook and mint on my lappie. But I don't use those much.

[forrestcupp]

I tried others before I found out about Ubuntu. I also tried Sabayon Linux several years ago, and I liked it a lot. Since then, the closest I've come to trying another distro is Mint. That's what I installed when I found out I didn't like Unity. What? :)

[c-1000]

my 2 reasons: :D

1) repositories. not only huge, but i think apt (in its various forms) is the way to go.
1a) PPAs

2) the community (including this forum). im not trying to be all "rah, rah! we're number 1!!1!" but, well...

[kvv_1986]

Yep, Ubuntu is a good out of the box distro and has an awesome repository. But it is a pain to keep reinstalling and configuring whenever a new release comes out. Takes a good 2 - 3 hours of my time. Takes out the whole point of using Ubuntu over any other distro.

Anyway, I might move to a distro with rolling release next time around.

[cgroza]

I tried to switch to Arch once. It was interesting at the beginning, making your way around the command line to get the X server installed and all that, but after that it was all boring.

[kvv_1986]

But it is still more bleeding edge than Ubuntu while supposedly more stable than Sid.

So did you come back to Ubuntu after a while?

[wolfen69]

But it is still more bleeding edge than Ubuntu while supposedly more stable than Sid.


Are you talking about arch?

I can understand the why people love arch, no doubt. But it's just not for me. I'd rather do a netinstall of debian or ubuntu. Minimal installs of either can be awesome.

[FreeTheBee]

I'm actually moving more and more towards Arch. I liked the idea of a rolling release and the diy idea, so I gave it a shot. I've had it on a second laptop for about 7 or 8 months now. A few weeks ago I installed it next to ubuntu in a dual boot on my primary laptop. Setting it up is more work, but once it is running it is as easy to maintain as Ubuntu and just as stable. If you like bleeding edge and/or small tools like uzbl or ranger, it is even easier to maintain, since there is no need to search for ppa's or do manual installs. After an installation of Ubuntu I still spend quite some time installing extra things I need and optionally getting rid of things I do not need, so I don't really get a 15 minute install anyway.

I will keep running Ubuntu at work though, so I'm not completely abandoning ship :)

[Starks]

Fedora: Didn't like the anal "no restricted software" mantra, lack of repos, and crappy font settings.

Arch: Didn't like having to install every driver from evdev to synaptic and doing it from the command line.

OpenSUSE: Didn't like how it lacks an identity and is still just a prettier Fedora.

[nothingspecial]

Second reason was that I spent the better part of two MONTHS trying to get Debian (Xfce, net-install) to work on my 'puter and get it just right - by the time I finished, it still had minor hardware problems, but the biggest surprise to me was that my custom-made, perfect-just-for-me mixture was very little different from Xubuntu! I thought, "Darn, I could have done this minutes instead of MONTHS, and with none of the hardware issues!"

That's what brings me back, over and over again.

-Robin

That's exactly what happened when I installed Arch, I spent ages setting everything up and getting it exactly how I like it, then took a step back........

.......and realised it was exactly how I set up Ubuntu, what was the point in that :rolleyes:

[boyluv2000]

This is a good thread and I hope it be kept alive. This is just my 2nd posting as I am new in Linux. I found this article last week that may be related to the article:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/10-best-linux-distros-for-2011-704584

So far I am using 10.04 mainly. However, at the insistence of my IT adviser and colleague, I am also toying with PCLinuxOS or PCLOS. I am not qualified to compare just yet but I think the choice of distro boils down to the same basic question: what do you plan to use it for?

For me, 10.04 suits me fine. I just need internet-related stuff and LibreOffice.

I think if you enjoy testing and comparing distros, I think your plan of use is just that: toying around, which is good in itself.

I tend to agree that the Linux is a wonderful world in itself but Linux suffers in some form of identity crises. So many variants with nowhere to go. I just wish Linux communities just come together, not waste resources, and just concentrate on a long-term plan that marries user needs and manufacturer's obsolescence plan.

On the other hand, it is due to the Linux community itself that we have this perennial hardware issue problem. If there is a strong bond between Linux and OEM manufacturers, this issue would not cropped up, IMHO.

That's for now from a complete noob.

[Starks]

Ubuntu in a nut-shell

* User-friendly
* PPAs are a god-send
* Unity still sucks on Oneiric

[snowpine]

Honestly I've reached the point where it doesn't really matter which distro I choose. All I need is Openbox, an office suite, and a web browser. I've yet to find a distro that doesn't meet those criteria. :)

Ubuntu was my first distro and I love the community here. Even though I've moved on to another distro, I still check in every 6 or 12 months to see what's new in Ubuntu-land. I heard a lot about Unity and wanted to check it out, guess what, I really like it! I have no plans to switch back to Ubuntu as my main distro, but I agree with the direction of the project and think they're doing great work. :)

[samigina]

1. Hardware Drives, the little app that says "ey you need this for your hardware to work". User friendly.

2. Ubuntu-Restricted-Extras, one click and voila, full working system. Again, user friendly.

Tried, Fedora, OpneSuse, Pardus, Chakra, Puppy, MoonOs, uff I cant remember all...

[timZZ]

I think my answer is like everyones on the most part. *The compatibility of the hardware.* When I was younger my father pointed me to Fedora for this very reason .. Ubuntu just surpassed Fedora in this aspect. I still have the odd Fedora box to keep up with the opposing trends but 99% of my Linux desktops are Ubuntu.

[sffvba[e0rt]

All roads lead to Ubuntu...


404

[Starks]

ubuntu could be a bit more proactive with new stuff like systemd, graphical grub, and wayland.

[GSF1200S]

Only speaking for myself, it's because spending hours to tweak your system is only fun for so long. Then someday you say "okay, enough goofing around, I want something that I can install in 15 minutes and get a functional system." And you can't beat Ubuntu with that.

P.S.: "Other distros" for me means Gentoo and Slackware, I've never tried the other "user-oriented" distros like OpenSuse or Fedora.

I agree- Ubuntu excels here.

My first foray into linux was Ubuntu 7.04, and despite having tried at least 20 different distros, I always end up having an Ubuntu install. For awhile it was Ubuntu, which then became Kubuntu (until KDE 4 released), and finally became Xubuntu.

The only exception is Arch. I keep Fedora and Gentoo around to mess with, but the simple fact is, Im getting to a point where I just want things to work. Arch takes awhile to set up initially, but when run with a simple DE like LXDE or XFCE, it is painless and indeed boring to maintain. In terms of software, it rivals Ubuntu in my opinion. Arch + Clyde (aur wrapper) + AUR means any software available on Ubuntu is available on Arch and then some. That said, sometimes pkgbuilds have dead URL's or build errors occur, where with Ubu if you find a deb or ppa, your set. Pacman is awesome..

I would say Ubuntu ends up being my fallback/backup for these main reasons:
1) It installs in almost no time, and there is a variant with the most popular DE/WM's configured out of the box (I use Xubuntu)
2) Huge repos
3) PPA's everywhere allowing certain portions of the system to roll-release
4) Patched to the extent (by release) that it is generally stable
5) Howto's everywhere on the web; Ubuntu forums
6) APT is an awesome package manager which Im even more familiar with than Pacman

[msandoy]

It's just an easy to roll out distro with a friendly and helpfull community. Easier to maintain five computers and a server when they all run the same OS. Server is basically the same as the desktop, only more lightweight.

[Guilden_NL]

I am sorry to say that the UI changes from Canonical keep heading in the wrong direction, so I have been moving all of my systems away from Ubuntu. Sure you can do all sorts of work-arounds like going with Gnome 3.0 for Natty, but what about long term support?

I think the first UI put off for me was when the window controls were moved to the left. Then over time, Ubuntu became more like the OS I despise most of all, OSx.

Great community here and I'll miss it, but Ubuntu took a hard left with Unity and Natty, leaving me to take a hard right leaving Ubuntu in my past.

[cariboo]

I am sorry to say that the UI changes from Canonical keep heading in the wrong direction, so I have been moving all of my systems away from Ubuntu. Sure you can do all sorts of work-arounds like going with Gnome 3.0 for Natty, but what about long term support?

I think the first UI put off for me was when the window controls were moved to the left. Then over time, Ubuntu became more like the OS I despise most of all, OSx.

Great community here and I'll miss it, but Ubuntu took a hard left with Unity and Natty, leaving me to take a hard right leaving Ubuntu in my past.

Have you tried the other members of the Ubuntu family? No matter what distribution you change to, the 2 panel interface is eventually going to go away, as there is no development work, or bug/security fixes being done on Gnome 2.X. I'd suggest the LTS version, as it's supported until 2013, which gives you time to get used to different desktop environments.

You also aren't stuck using Unity on Natty, try some of the other desktop environments available in the repositories. I personally have a system running XBMC on top of Natty, it works quite well, even without Unity.

[Starks]

Gave LMDE a try. Too much of a pain in the *** with upgrading to current rolling and getting Bumblebee to work.

So, I've been running vanilla Mint (pun not intended) for the past few days and I'm quite satisfied.

A familiar Ubuntu backend with an interface that doesn't suck hard.

I'm done with Unity and Gnome-Shell until the Fall release cycle. No more test releases.

[Kromgol]

I wonder why people love PPA's when for example the Arch User Repository is far superior in every way. I mainly like the fact that everything is centralized in one place and not spread around the web as PPA's.

Running Arch atm, but i really like Debian as well and i'd take Debian any day over Ubuntu. I don't care if things doesn't work out of the box, i'll just make it run then. The only version of Ubuntu i would be able to run would be Ubuntu without a DE/WM or anything pre-installed. I like to choose for myself without having a lot of unneeded software that just contributes to the overall bloat.

[Starks]

I found Arch a pain in the ***.

Once you install, there are so many updates and packages to deal with before you reach a usuable graphical desktop.

The AUR approach is nice though.

[el_koraco]

I'm done with Unity and Gnome-Shell until the Fall release cycle. No more test releases.

Word, only I'm done with both until 2013 at least.

[Kromgol]

I found Arch a pain in the ***.

Once you install, there are so many updates and packages to deal with before you reach a usuable graphical desktop.

The AUR approach is nice though.

Well, not really. I've done plenty of reinstallations with Arch and i usually just do pacman-db-upgrade, then pacman -Syu to ensure the package lists and everything is updated, then i usually just go and create a user account to use as my primary, install sudo, install alsa-utils for alsamixer, video drivers, xorg and my WM of choice.

[Starks]

There's a point where too much control over how much Linux you have becomes counterintuitive.

[Kromgol]

There's a point where too much control over how much Linux you have becomes counterintuitive.

Haha, maybe for some people :P

[danyc05]

I've gone through so many distros throughout the couple years of using Ubuntu. Recently I bought a new laptop with Windows 7 and stayed on it for a while but I kept missing Linux and soon enough I installed Ubuntu completely and havent regret it one bit. And the community here is a huge factor of why I love Ubuntu along with all the other good things about it.

[del_diablo]

Well, not really. I've done plenty of reinstallations with Arch and i usually just do pacman-db-upgrade, then pacman -Syu to ensure the package lists and everything is updated, then i usually just go and create a user account to use as my primary, install sudo, install alsa-utils for alsamixer, video drivers, xorg and my WM of choice.

And then xorg is not working, you have no idea why, sound is not working, alsa is not installed, and then you also get some packages into the system that REQUIRES configuration out of the box before they start working.
And then your desktop system failed to start because you had leftover config files in your user directory.
Arch is not worth the hassle. Especially if you need to bootstrap some random gfx cards, lets say ATI ones, and you are unlucky with your motherboards BIOS. Or when you find dated wiki pages that lack disclaimers, such as that certain packages automatically break.
And lets not get into the fact you need to manually setup each daemon, and tweak each config file on the top of that.
I all ever wanted to do was to do: "pacman -syu kde" and then have a working desktop.

If you know that 1 package your GFX card needs, and that it works, and you know all the subpackages you need to install, and you know what daemons is needed, and you know where to put those config files?
And everything works on reboot?
Sure, then you can install Archlinux.

[kaldor]

Ubuntu is easy and aimed toward the mainstream and has a real company backing it. No other distro has the same sort of support behind it. You have a company focused on providing a professional experience for average users. Still though, as I see it now, I think all Ubuntu users are still simply early adopters and shouldn't complain about change to the UI and shifts of the FOSS paradigm.

[snowpine]

Well now, each of the major distros exists for a reason. They would not be thriving if the user experience did not satisfy the needs of their specific user community.

One nice thing about Ubuntu, IMHO, is that it's actually two different distros: on the one hand, it's an "early adopter" distro that showcases sometimes-controversial new features like Unity; on the other hand, it can be a stable Long-Term-Support distro with business-class "enterprise" support.

[Starks]

Ubuntu is not early adopter. We won't see any systemd or Intel SNA until October 2012 because of the LTS.

They're the antithesis of it since they screw up everything they pioneer.

Fedora is early adopter.

[snowpine]

Ubuntu is not early adopter. We won't see any systemd or Intel SNA until October 2012 because of the LTS.

They're the antithesis of it since they screw up everything they pioneer.

Fedora is early adopter.

Ubuntu is the first distro to have Unity. :)

[Starks]

>They're the antithesis of it since they screw up everything they pioneer.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Unity has been a disaster and nothing of substance has been proposed or come together to drastically improve it in time for 11.10.

Oneiric daily has been a nightmare.

[ninjaaron]

Probably because Ubuntu is the best "easy installation" distro. It has good hardware support, good community, and excellent selection of bundled apps. It's also integrated cloud computing in a way that other distros have yet to try. Ubuntu One sucked at first, but now I can't live without it.

I'm slowly but surely migrating over to Arch, but that's because I'm a control freak, I enjoy building my own system and I loooove getting the latest software all the time without anything breaking. Once you set it up, it pretty much takes care of itself.




Oneiric daily has been a nightmare.
It's still in alpha. It's a nightmare for everyone except devs who like fixing problems. It's not open-season on Oneiric for two more months. Then you can trash it all you like.

[Kromgol]

And then xorg is not working, you have no idea why, sound is not working, alsa is not installed, and then you also get some packages into the system that REQUIRES configuration out of the box before they start working.
And then your desktop system failed to start because you had leftover config files in your user directory.
Arch is not worth the hassle. Especially if you need to bootstrap some random gfx cards, lets say ATI ones, and you are unlucky with your motherboards BIOS. Or when you find dated wiki pages that lack disclaimers, such as that certain packages automatically break.
And lets not get into the fact you need to manually setup each daemon, and tweak each config file on the top of that.
I all ever wanted to do was to do: "pacman -syu kde" and then have a working desktop.

If you know that 1 package your GFX card needs, and that it works, and you know all the subpackages you need to install, and you know what daemons is needed, and you know where to put those config files?
And everything works on reboot?
Sure, then you can install Archlinux.

This is exactly what i love about Arch. If it's broken, i'll try to fix it. ALSA is installed by default though, so that's a false statement. And as far as i know, ALSA is installed in Ubuntu as default as well, and if the audio is broken in ALSA, it's most likely broken in Ubuntu as well as ALSA doesn't support every soundcard out there.

The Arch wiki is absolutely the best wiki out there, there's so much information and i've yet to see another wiki that covers so many applications, tutorials etc.
The Ubuntu wiki is inferior compared to Arch's wiki, and i mean, even if you don't run Arch, you can still use plenty of information from their wiki.
I think most pages are being kept updated enough.

Manually setup each daemon? You mean.. Adding the daemon name to rc.conf to have it automatically start? Most apps usually create a daemon script automatically if it can be used as a daemon. What you do with it is your choice.

I love tweaking every config file as that ensures me things run the way i want it to run.

I know that "one package" my GPU needs, and that it works. I do not need to know what dependencies it needs as i'm not running Slackware which doesn't have a package manager that has support for dependencies, pacman automatically sorts out the required packages. Daemons and configs are fine as well, if i don't know something i'll google it and learn it.

Arch is for me, a learning experience. A great learning experience.

[XubuRoxMySox]

Ubuntu is not early adopter. We won't see any systemd or Intel SNA until October 2012 because of the LTS.

They're the antithesis of it since they screw up everything they pioneer.

Fedora is early adopter.

Fedora doesn't have LTS releases at all. Unless you buy it (RHEL) or use an older clone of it like Scientific Linux or CentOS.

The mere fact that Ubuntu has a LTS release is in itself an early adoption. I think Canonical should exploit this advantage in the marketing of Ubuntu (see Idea #28315 (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/28315/)) by directing Linux novices to the LTS releases.

Unity is also an example of early adoption. Ubuntu takes the risk (and all the harsh criticism) by developing and using it first, but I'd bet that some form of Unity will find itself in common use on many more distros before long.

-Robin

[FlameReaper]

I wonder why people love PPA's when for example the Arch User Repository is far superior in every way. I mainly like the fact that everything is centralized in one place and not spread around the web as PPA's.

Running Arch atm, but i really like Debian as well and i'd take Debian any day over Ubuntu. I don't care if things doesn't work out of the box, i'll just make it run then. The only version of Ubuntu i would be able to run would be Ubuntu without a DE/WM or anything pre-installed. I like to choose for myself without having a lot of unneeded software that just contributes to the overall bloat.

There's the K/L/X/Ubuntu Alternate CD which lets you build your preferred system from a CLI base, but since an installation of a package on these usually has the pre-configuration done without you needing to do so, you might find it to be boring to let it happen just like that.

Arch, to me, is as fun as trying to figure the best and fastest boot-to-desktop configurations. And I don't usually get any further than that other than trying to get things that I need to get it working, work. Surely its something to do as a past time but not when I need a hardware/software combination which costs only as much as the hardware and a stable yet considerably okay Internet connection to save time and costs on productivity.

[smd0665]

My first exposure to Linux was Red Hat 5.2 back in 1999 or so. There wasn't a whole lot I could do with it other than play CD's. It took me forever to figure out how to change screen resolution. I had to use a floppy disk to boot it up (whoever created Grub is a genius). The idea of a free operating system really appealed to me, though, and I like solving puzzles, so I kept my Windows partition and continued to occasionally play around with Linux. I tried some other distros, such as Debian and Mandrake as well as Red Hat 6.2 and 7.3.

For a while, I stopped playing around with Linux, because it still didn't do everything I needed. My son, actually, told me about Ubuntu (Dapper), so I decided to try it. Linux had really matured by that point.

At this point, the two distros I've used the most are Ubuntu and Arch. I tried Arch for a year, because there were many things in a typical Ubuntu installation that I just don't use. I'm certainly not afraid of the command line after using Arch. Again, my son was the one who told me about Ubuntu Minimal Install: it's great for creating your own OS, but has Ubuntu's repositories.

[medic2000]

I don't want the thread turn to "Arch is great" thread but i was a long Ubuntu user before migrating to ArchLinux. Now unless i need an urgent working system in 15 minutes i think i will never return to Ubuntu.

Arch was at first an experiment for me too. I was having problems with it. But after i've understand how to "wield" ArchLinux now my system works great without reinstalling or breaking for years. I think it is also the power of Openbox and its great shorcuts, flexible and simple nature combined with Archlinux. Why it is a great system for me?

1-)Setup once use forever.

2)Up-to-date yet stable.(Don't forget the check archlinux.org main page for changes before updating)

3-)Pacman is a magnificent package manager.

4-)AUR(Arch User Repository) - Packages that are not in official repos. You can use "yaourt", "aurget" like aur helpers to easily install packages from these repos.

5-)Arch Wiki is unrivalled.

6-)It is a system building specially for you. So simply you don't install anything you don't want.Say goodbye to needless bloat, needless libraries, daemons etc.

7-)(Ok specially for me) Because it is a custom system and i use Openbox,i haven't got so much libraries and packages. I nearly know every package in my system. Less package less bug. And i am able to isolate and detect the problematic package easily. I know all of you. Like a teacher knowing every student in the class and detecting who is being naughty immediately :))

[Starks]

I'll probably give Arch another whirl on my spare laptop.

My biggest problem last time was figuring out what I needed as opposed to what I didn't need.

[medic2000]

I'll probably give Arch another whirl on my spare laptop.

My biggest problem last time was figuring out what I needed as opposed to what I didn't need.

Needed about what?

By the way i you try the minimalistic approach i can offer you a list of great programs that has no/minimum dependency yet still makes the job thorough like the big ones.

[Starks]

for me, arch went like this...

*install graphic and touchpad drivers*
*install gnome 3*
*install XYZ*
"s***, i'm still missing stuff"

every time i thought of something, i remembered that i needed to install it.

[BrokenKingpin]

I find Xubuntu just works for me, and I am very familiar with it's package management and the system in general. The only thing I wish I had on Ubuntu was more of a rolling release. I have tried a number of rolling release distros out there, but I find myself coming back to Ubuntu because it just works better.

[sffvba[e0rt]

Never mind... here have a :KS


404

[neu5eeCh]

1.) PPA's.
2.) Repos.
3.) Just works (relatively speaking).
4.) Xubuntu, WattOS4, Pinguy, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Bodhi, Mint LXDE & other Ubuntu derivatives... don't have to (& never will have to) use Unity (thank god).

[Erik1984]

1.) PPA's.
2.) Repos.
3.) Just works (relatively speaking).
4.) Xubuntu, WattOS4, Pinguy, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Bodhi, Mint LXDE & other Ubuntu derivatives... don't have to (& never will have to) use Unity (thank god).

5.) Out of the box experience. Ubuntu ships with a balanced set of applications, quite remarkable that it's still a CD's size. A more subjective argument: it gives a warm welcoming feeling compared to for example Xubuntu, Kubuntu and Windows XP.

[medic2000]

for me, arch went like this...

*install graphic and touchpad drivers*
*install gnome 3*
*install XYZ*
"s***, i'm still missing stuff"

every time i thought of something, i remembered that i needed to install it.

Just follow the "Beginners' Guide" and you will be fine. Step by step guide from basic to complete desktop.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide#Partition_Hard_Drives

[IWantFroyo]

1) The software repositories and package manager. Ubuntu's ease of software installation is almost unmatched, and apt-get is really nice.

2) Drivers. I still wonder why Jockey hasn't been ported to other distros.

3) Familiarity. I know Ubuntu. When Fedora crashes around my feet, where do you think I'll go?

[Quadunit404]

Ubuntu is easy and aimed toward the mainstream and has a real company backing it. No other distro has the same sort of support behind it. You have a company focused on providing a professional experience for average users. Still though, as I see it now, I think all Ubuntu users are still simply early adopters and shouldn't complain about change to the UI and shifts of the FOSS paradigm.

So I suppose that Red Hat isn't a real company? It backs Fedora, you know.

[Khakilang]

That is why I always keep 1 or 2 older computer to try other Distros. Currently I have Debian Squeeze on 1 and Xubuntu on the other and my main computer is the latest Ubuntu release. In that that way I never get bore.

[Starks]

Still loving Mint.

Until the next-get DEs are friendlier to power users, I won't look back.

[dpny]

Ubuntu's done a good job making a distro that's easy to install, easy to use and is a relatively easy was to learn Linux. The Ubuntu community is also large and helpful for newcomers which is not always the way it is in other communities.

If, like me, you run Linux for fun and to learn some stuff, it's perfect.

[Johnb0y]

Ubuntu's done a good job making a distro that's easy to install, easy to use and is a relatively easy was to learn Linux. The Ubuntu community is also large and helpful for newcomers which is not always the way it is in other communities.

If, like me, you run Linux for fun and to learn some stuff, it's perfect.

+1 the one i have started with...

[orange2k]

Ive tried Fedora and Linux Mint but I always keep coming back to Ubuntu.

This may change in the future though because I hate Unity and I'm still on Ubuntu 10.10, but I'll probably going to go Xubuntu...

:-\"

[Johnb0y]

Ive tried Fedora and Linux Mint but I always keep coming back to Ubuntu.

This may change in the future though because I hate Unity and I'm still on Ubuntu 10.10, but I'll probably going to go Xubuntu...

:-\"

you do know you can take unity off.... and use gnome...??? :P

[cgroza]

Same was happening to me before.
But now, I installed Arch and use it more than Ubuntu. I still have the Ubuntu partition, and I will start using it again when Oneiric comes out.

By the way, my Arch and Ubuntu installs look and behave exactly the same so there is no real reason behind why I am using Arch.

[orange2k]

you do know you can take unity off.... and use gnome...??? :P

Yeah, but I can't get the cube and wobbly windows back, its just not working in 11.04 any more...

[GSF1200S]

Yeah, but I can't get the cube and wobbly windows back, its just not working in 11.04 any more...

Works fine on Xubuntu 11.04 ;)

[Shining Arcanine]

I don't get it.

Is it because Ubuntu is so well-rounded or because other distros do certain things better and suck at everything else?

Have you tried Gentoo? I wanted to start using Linux for a long time, but I wasn't able to start until I found Gentoo. I was using VMWare Player to evaluate Linux distributions. The first distribution I tried was Ubuntu, but I couldn't bring myself to use it. There were glitches galore and the lag was horrible. Then I tried Gentoo and it just worked.

With Gentoo, I did not have to fiddle with stuff to get the mouse working in X. I simply followed the instructions in the documentation and it worked on the first try. Also, Gentoo required me to choose a desktop environment instead of choosing one for me. That was a godsend at the time as I didn't understand Linux very well having come from using Windows 7 and I found GNOME to be extremely unintuitive.

Anyway, you should try Gentoo. In my experience, Gentoo tends to work better than Ubuntu.

[el_koraco]

You tarted using Linux with Gentoo? Man, I've never heard something like that.

[ninjaaron]

Well, my romance with Arch is kinda over. Back to 'buntu

I like it and all, but I was installing a lot of important packages from the AUR, which means I'll have to handle updating them myself.

I guess I came back this time because Ubuntu's repos are huge and have everything I use. Plus, when I do install external stuff, it almost always has a PPA, so I don't really need to maintain anything there either. Plus, Ubuntu tends to be more cutting edge than most distros (especially with back-ports and proposed enabled) unless you stick with the LTS. It's generally not too far behind Arch.

Plus, I actually love Unity and the desktop integration of so many online and local services, and the cloud and whatnot. Ubuntu really does that stuff on a higher level than anyone else.

Not saying I wouldn't go back to Arch on day, but they need bigger repos or better support from 3rd party repos before I'm seriously interested.

[Syndicalist]

I don't get it.

Is it because Ubuntu is so well-rounded or because other distros do certain things better and suck at everything else?


Actually, Ive found a few good distros that would be pretty much complete if not for one or two things.

If Mepis had a driver installer it would beat Ubuntu, hands down. I hate Unity, and Mepis is snappier with its Debian base yet uses the Ubuntu repos.

PCLOS is all around better than Ubuntu EXCEPT no x64 yet. Deal breaker for now, at least on my desktop.

Even OpenSuse is looking like a suitable alternative at this point. I have trouble with RPM distros though.


Also, there are derivatives that are superior. Mint is more than a makeover, they provide a better out of the box experience, and Mint Tools really make a difference. I like being able to watch DVDs without extra labor of installing Medibuntu.....and Pinguy is awesome. I love the choice of software and repositories. It would take a week or two to get vanillia Ubuntu that polished.


Im trying to find something NOT based on Ubuntu though, just in case I dont like how future editions evolve.....Ubuntu has been great, but having at least 1 suitable backup plan would be prudent.

[NightwishFan]

If Mepis had a driver installer it would beat Ubuntu, hands down.
A driver installer is nice but not really required.


I hate Unity, and Mepis is snappier with its Debian base yet uses the Ubuntu repos.
Mepis 11 is binary compatibile with Debian Stable it probably does not use much Ubuntu code. There are few to no references to Ubuntu on the Mepis site.


PCLOS is all around better than Ubuntu EXCEPT no x64 yet. Deal breaker for now, at least on my desktop.
And my refrigerator is all around better than PCLinuxOS?


Even OpenSuse is looking like a suitable alternative at this point. I have trouble with RPM distros though.
I have trouble with a [transparent auto dependency resolving one click install package managing tool] compared to this other [transparent auto dependency resolving one click install package managing tool].



Also, there are derivatives that are superior. Mint is more than a makeover, they provide a better out of the box experience, and Mint Tools really make a difference.
And yet it is still just Ubuntu.


I like being able to watch DVDs without extra labor of installing Medibuntu.
Ubuntu does not do this for a reason or else it would be included.



Ubuntu has been great, but having at least 1 suitable backup plan would be prudent.
Choose as you will.

[ninjaaron]

I have trouble with a [transparent auto dependency resolving one click install package managing tool] compared to this other [transparent auto dependency resolving one click install package managing tool].


I know, right? What's this with everyone having trouble with RPMs? Just use it like you would a deb file. It's not like your compiling all your bins from source or something...

It's like saying the app-store on the iPhone is too difficult.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

My opinion is to use what you like...use what works for you.

I have several machines with different distros and operating systems. The multimedia server runs Windows 7 primarily because of Netflix. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux at work so I have a server at home running CentOS with the same version as the RHEL we use at work. I have an old laptop that runs Ubuntu 11.04 very poorly so I run Debian on it. I have a netbook I use when I travel for work that dual boots Windows 7 and Linux Mint 9. I have a computer with a big screen in the room with the family's exercise equipment, that is used for entertainment during exercise, which dual boots Windows Vista and Ubuntu 10.04. I have three computers for the grandchildren to use that all use Ubuntu 10.04. My laptop I use a lot of the time runs Ubuntu 10.04 with VirtualBox running VMs of CentOS, Ubuntu 11.04, Fedora, Windows Vista, and anything else I am currently experimenting with. I'm sure I missed a computer or an OS in the list. I have reasons for what I run on each machine.

There are a few differences between distros like the DE; such as, Gnome, KDE, XFCE, etc. There are also differences in APT and YUM. Once you are accustomed to those, and know you can change the DEs then it is not difficult to use what you need to solve a particular problem or accomplish a specific task.

I like the Ubuntu forums. It is the most friendly and active of any distro I've used. I participate in the Ubuntu forums frequently. That is one of the things that Ubuntu does have above the others.

[Syndicalist]

Mepis works with Ubuntu repositories, unlike most Debian distros that often break when you have both. I dont remember saying Mepis had code taken directly from Ubuntu. On the contrary, I said its essentially Debian at its core.

Yes, these are my opinions instead of objective facts, but the only reason you are jumping down my throat instead of at other opinions is because Im not on the "Ubuntu is better than absolutely everything else" bandwagon.

If you posted the OT on a different distros board, THEY would be the ones to find it offensive. It just happens that THIS crowd is where the fanboys for THIS distro hang out. You are biased, even in what you consider flame. This topic would be "flame" in other boards.



I personally dont feel that Ubuntu is the best anymore.....Its the most convenient, outside of PCLOS in 32bit, but it does not perform the best, and the rebranded Ubuntu products are often better than the original.



I have not used vanillia Ubuntu in years because it just takes too long to get it how I like it....its doable, but its a pain when you are working on many different computers....Something like installing drivers by hand on 8 computers is possible, but not convenient. Installing Medibuntu isnt convenient, and it makes your live distros sub-par without medibuntu.

Ubuntu lacks the best penetration tools and many good multi-media tools.


Some of the non-Ubuntu based competition is really catching up, and with snappier performance. They just need a few tools to make them more noob friendly.


And RPM packages are not really the problem, its the tools typically used to handle RPM packaging. Synaptic, Aptitude and Apt-get are some of the best things around....I like Yast actually, and Suse is probably one of the better implementation of RPM. PCLOS was perfect because they use Synaptic though they are based on an RPM distro. I think Im a convert to PCLOS once they get 64bit. If mepis gets some video driver scripts, I might also go that route....Maybe Mint Tools plus a driver installer, and its made.


Ubuntu has all the best stuff that I like....Except Gnome, codecs of Mint/pinguy, the hardware support of Mandriva, the speed of Debian/Mandriva, the stability of debian testing.....repositories are easily added though it would be nice to see them tested and made to work together. Also, it has some bloat that I probably dont need.


Ubuntu has been impressive and ground breaking. I am comparing pretty much every alternative to Ubuntu itself....but it bothers me that there isnt a totally finished/solid replacement. I think its foolish for the linux community to put all their eggs in one basket. Can anyone really disagree with that? They could drop support for your favorite DE, and suddenly its buggy in all the new implemtations of it on the offshoots even.....What do you do then? Accept unity or move to another distro?

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

... the only reason you are jumping down my throat instead of at other opinions is because Im not on the "Ubuntu is better than absolutely everything else" bandwagon.

If this is in response to the post by NightwishFan, you are mistaken. NightwishFan uses Debian, not Ubuntu.

I don't think anyone is reacting to you personally. They are just expressing their opinion. Just like you are.

[1roxtar]

I can't stand using anything other than Ubuntu. I'm one of those guys who scratches his head every time I read about someone's persistent hardware problems. I have installed Ubuntu on all my computers since 9.04...on old and new computers, all makes and models, 32 bit and 64 bit machines...and have had nothing but great results every time. Most niggles have been easy to work through (props to the Community) and when I need to buy hardware for my computers, I look for Linux compatible items, especially when looking for wireless cards and TV tuners.

[NightwishFan]

Yes, these are my opinions instead of objective facts, but the only reason you are jumping down my throat instead of at other opinions is because Im not on the "Ubuntu is better than absolutely everything else" bandwagon.
I do not use nor even recommend Ubuntu. :) I have helped folks with it for years though and I still like these forums and help folks when I can. :)


the rebranded Ubuntu products are often better than the original.
Better how? Annoying google addons and some extra tools. If I wanted something from Mint I would just install Debian and add their tools myself. :)


Ubuntu lacks the best penetration tools and many good multi-media tools.
What do you mean 'it lacks'? I dislike PPAs but there is a PPA for everything. You can even install rpm packages for stuff that is distributed that way. Last resort just compile it.


Some of the non-Ubuntu based competition is really catching up, and with snappier performance. They just need a few tools to make them more noob friendly.
I can agree a that a tiny bit of work on 'the little things' would not hurt on some distributions I use.


And RPM packages are not really the problem, its the tools typically used to handle RPM packaging. Synaptic, Aptitude and Apt-get are some of the best things around....I like Yast actually, and Suse is probably one of the better implementation of RPM. PCLOS was perfect because they use Synaptic though they are based on an RPM distro. I think Im a convert to PCLOS once they get 64bit. If mepis gets some video driver scripts, I might also go that route....
I am learned in the advanced usage of apt but I really like Fedora and SUSE command line and GUI tools. They all work great.


Maybe Mint Tools plus a driver installer, and its made.

Spare us please..


Except Gnome
Unity is Gnome. Just not Gnome panel. Install Gnome 3 fallback or xfce. Gnome 2 is dead.


codecs of Mint/pinguy
I can understand but they are not included for legal reasons. That is unavoidable, and I support the decision.


the hardware support of Mandriva
Elaborate please. Unless they use a whole slew of non-free or out of tree drivers the hardware support is the same on all builds of mainline linux.


the speed of Debian/Mandriva
Ubuntu's kernel is pretty nicely tuned actually.


the stability of debian testing
Stability:
a. Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
b. Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
c. Reliability; dependability.

Testing changes multiple times a day. It is not stable.



I think its foolish for the linux community to put all their eggs in one basket.
I agree, nor has/will it happen in the near future.


They could drop support for your favorite DE,
Gnome is now Gnome 3. It has nothing to do with Ubuntu.


What do you do then? Accept unity or move to another distro?
Whatever is the best option for what you want. Want Gnome 2? Use a distro that supports it long term such as Ubuntu 10.04, Debian 6, Scientific OS. Gnome 2 is not developed upstream and community forms of it will likely not be included in main distributions for a variety of reasons. LXDE, XFCE, KDE, Gnome 3, Unity, there are plenty of options.

[Starks]

Gave Oneiric daily a spin.

The new launcher is glitchy and Unity as a whole has regressed.

[BlacqWolf]

I used Fedora and Arch. I've found myself coming back to Ubuntu, it just felt more comfortable and Ubuntu seemed like it was the most maintenance-free things out there.

[Johnb0y]

I used Fedora and Arch. I've found myself coming back to Ubuntu, it just felt more comfortable and Ubuntu seemed like it was the most maintenance-free things out there.

+1 i just love maintenance-free things

but if you dont...then it could put you off...i suppose! :P

[Alwimo]

Gave Oneiric daily a spin.

The new launcher is glitchy and Unity as a whole has regressed.
A few months ago, I compared Unity upon Natty's release to Unity just a week or two beforehand. Unity improved tremendously in a very short time. We're still weeks away from Oneiric's release, and there's a lot of time for a lot of the bugs to be worked out.