PDA

View Full Version : What's the real reason behind Ubuntu's Success ?



linuxyogi
July 21st, 2011, 05:31 PM
Hi,

What is the real reason behind Ubuntu's success ?

The most common answer : "Its user friendly". Sure it is but Ubuntu is not the only user friendly distro out there.

IMO openSUSE's YAST makes it more user friendly than Ubuntu. I know most here won't agree to that.

I think the main reason behind Ubuntu's success is ubuntuforums.org with its great number of knowledgeable & helpful members. Also the approach that this forum takes towards new users.

I have tried lots of distros & therefore registered at multiple distribution forums but none are as vibrant as this one.

I keep reading that many users are leaving Ubuntu coz they don't like Unity. If that's true then its really a sad fact. But I bet even they move to a different distro they will keep coming back to this forum for help.

The little that I know about Linux I learned from this forum.

Thank you ubuntuforums.org (http://ubuntuforums.org/ubuntuforums.org)

unknownPoster
July 21st, 2011, 05:38 PM
You need to define success, because by most standards Linux on the desktop is not successful.

linuxyogi
July 21st, 2011, 05:40 PM
You need to define success, because by most standards Linux on the desktop is not successful.

By success I mean the number of users in comparison to others Linux distros.

Spice Weasel
July 21st, 2011, 05:41 PM
I'm going to quote KiwiNZ here:


1. Its the current pet of the IT magazines and many of the online magazines and as such has a higher profile

2. It gets included in a lot of the above magazine cover disc's

3. Its had more TV coverage than other Distros

4. Due to Shipit there is a lot of Ubuntu Disc's out there

5. It first on the Distrowatch list and that is wrongly perceived as a "quality" ranking

6. Earlier releases were very good.

Simian Man
July 21st, 2011, 05:47 PM
The fact that they had the warm & fuzzy humanity thing and gave away free CDs attracted lots of positive attention, leading to a large community. Even though those things are largely gone now, they remain the most popular distro thanks to momentum.

There isn't, and never was, any actual advantage over other mainstream distros.

tommpogg
July 21st, 2011, 05:49 PM
So it is just a matter of marketing... I thought CIA or UFO were behind it all

Bucky Ball
July 21st, 2011, 05:55 PM
... a large community.

I think the active an helpful forums and webpages are an often overlooked reason for Ubuntu's popularity. You can actually get help! (Which can sometimes be hard with Win, Mac, or other Linux distros).

XubuRoxMySox
July 21st, 2011, 05:57 PM
...in other words, popularity.

No one has "brought Debian to the ordinary casual computer user" like Ubuntu has. Ubuntu was not the first to "tame Debian" for us ordinary mortals, but they did a great job of it, and they marketed it in a slick, savvy was with their cool slogan, "Linux For Human Beings."

Another reason for their popularity is two important facts about Linux distros:

1. - Choose a distro and you're also choosing a repository. Ubuntu has hyooge, ginormous, gargantuan, colossal repositories!

2. - Choose a distro and you're also choosing a Linux community to turn to for help, contribute to, and identify with.

Those really smart things that Canonical did have done more to market and popularize Ubuntu and it's siblings than most of the other distros have done. Even the ones that you or I might think are "way better than Ubuntu" aren't as popular nor are they used on as many desktops as Ubuntu.

Another wise thing I think they're doing is looking down the time-tunnel at emerging technology and trends, and adapting Ubuntu for the future much sooner than the other distros. Unity is an example of it, I think. Looking at portable devices, touch screens, etc., Unity is a step towards that.

I know others will say, "It's all hype and noise, without any substance," but they're wrong. Smart marketing, community, resources, and innovation are as valuable as code.

Proud to be part of it,
Robin

LowSky
July 21st, 2011, 06:11 PM
Google also helps. Look up 'Linux' and Ubuntu ends up high on that list.
A huge plus is having a billionaire-who-is-also-an-astronaut as the companies founder.

koenn
July 21st, 2011, 08:51 PM
Google also helps. Look up 'Linux' and Ubuntu ends up high on that list.
I think you have that backwards : Ubuntu shows up in Google searches because it's popular (and therefore there's a lot of online coverage, blogs, etc)


same goes for half KiwiNZ's list

I'm going to quote KiwiNZ here:

1. Its the current pet of the IT magazines and many of the online magazines and as such has a higher profile
2. It gets included in a lot of the above magazine cover disc's
3. Its had more TV coverage than other Distros
4. Due to Shipit there is a lot of Ubuntu Disc's out there
5. It first on the Distrowatch list and that is wrongly perceived as a "quality" ranking
6. Earlier releases were very good.


#5 : being first on Distrowatch is a result of ubuntu's success (as in popularity, mass appeal, ...), not the rason for it. Likewise for most instances of #1 a,d #2.

(although there is certainly a positive feedback loop at work there as well)

el_koraco
July 21st, 2011, 09:21 PM
There isn't, and never was, any actual advantage over other mainstream distros.

The restricted driver utility is pretty helpful for new users. When it works, that is.

Dustin2128
July 21st, 2011, 09:52 PM
I didn't think ubuntu had succeeded. *shrug*

hhh
July 21st, 2011, 09:58 PM
4 reasons I initially used Ubuntu instead of Windows (I messed with Breezy but didn't use Ubuntu as my primary OS until Feisty, IIRC)...

~Wubi made testing Ubuntu a piece of cake, very easy to see if hardware was detected and get used to how to use the programs and system management tools. You didn't have to repartition and it was much easier than a Live CD for testing Ubuntu for a long period of time, like a month or more, to see if you really liked it.

~Hardware detection. Ubuntu was the first, and for quite a while the only, OS to let my wireless USB adapter work out-of-the-box. Without that I never would have switched from Windows.

~The installer, which took a lot of the fear out of repartitioning and dual booting. Again if I remember, all you had to do was successfully shrink your Windows partition with Gparted or similar and then the installer would automatically create swap, format the remaining space and install Ubuntu.

-edit to add 1 more-

~Documentation, both official and unofficial. There were literally tons of sites that explained how to dual boot Ubuntu and XP, among the best being psychocats. (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installing)

kaldor
July 22nd, 2011, 01:47 AM
I didn't think ubuntu had succeeded. *shrug*

Ubuntu has conquered the Linux desktop. If anyone wants to argue that, stop to think about how many people you've met have heard of anything besides Ubuntu.

unknownPoster
July 22nd, 2011, 01:55 AM
Ubuntu has conquered the Linux desktop. If anyone wants to argue that, stop to think about how many people you've met have heard of anything besides Ubuntu.

It hasn't when I work with 3 RHCEs (Red Hat Certified Engineer) that had never heard of Ubuntu until I mentioned it.

foxmulder881
July 22nd, 2011, 01:57 AM
I find this a rather simple question to answer.

1. The fact it's based on the Debian foundations.
2. APT based package management.
3. Size of packages readily available from the repositories.

Dustin2128
July 22nd, 2011, 02:00 AM
Ubuntu has conquered the Linux desktop. If anyone wants to argue that, stop to think about how many people you've met have heard of anything besides Ubuntu.
Strange, last time I checked it had plateaued at about 30-40% of usage share of linux, and has been mostly stagnant since the move from stability and usability to "teh shinies".

forrestcupp
July 22nd, 2011, 02:00 AM
There isn't, and never was, any actual advantage over other mainstream distros.

I disagree. When I first tried Hoary Hedgehog, I had already unsuccessfully tried a lot of other distros. Ubuntu was the first thing I tried that I actually got everything to work pretty easily. Now it's popular for mainstream distros to be user friendly. Ubuntu was user friendly back when Linux was still hard. In my opinion, this is what gave Ubuntu a huge boost, and they've done a great job at keeping the momentum going.

Also, they have a business man behind the scenes pushing things.

KiwiNZ
July 22nd, 2011, 02:06 AM
Ubuntu has conquered the Linux desktop. If anyone wants to argue that, stop to think about how many people you've met have heard of anything besides Ubuntu.

I will concede that ubuntu has a high profile, but conquered the Linux Desktop, no.

handy
July 22nd, 2011, 02:13 AM
What's the real reason behind Ubuntu's Success ?

The ubuntuforums.org . Being well run it has enabled the relatively quick growth of the Ubuntu community. If it weren't for the effectiveness of the forums many people would move on to other easy to use desktop distros.

If Ubuntu had a great wiki, then it would be more successful I think.

akand074
July 22nd, 2011, 03:18 AM
About a year ago I tried Arch, Fedora, Mint, Debian, Chakra, openSUSE, and maybe a variant or two. To be honest, I didn't even really notice a difference between any of them overall. Especially those with the same DE. In the end, I just went back to Ubuntu. I liked it best. All my drivers worked on all releases I tried. I really liked arch and pacman. Fedora felt exactly like Ubuntu except without .deb/APT that I was used to and liked. I really didn't like YaST and really openSUSE overall personally. Debian was exactly like Ubuntu, just without Ubuntu-specific things. Chakra was a mess. Mint was really nice. But I mean overall, I can do the exact same thing regardless of which distribution I used, just slightly different defaults and such.

I feel more at home in Ubuntu. I understand I'd likely have a different experience now as Ubuntu has Unity, Fedora has Gnome 3 and the difference between distros is starting to grow. But I like what Ubuntu is doing. I'm excited to see the new professional looking software centre and I can easily change DE/defaults if I didn't like choices they made. I'd easily say it's the best Linux distribution in terms of mainstream general OS. Obviously some distros are better for different people's needs, but I'd stand firm on that statement.

Gawains Green Knight
July 22nd, 2011, 03:49 AM
It's simple - Ubuntu just works.

handy
July 22nd, 2011, 04:38 AM
It's simple - Ubuntu just works.

Probably that is true for most users. Though there are a LOT of users that Ubuntu just doesn't work properly for. There are lots of problems in the multimedia sub-forum here - sound, video not playing back properly when it did on the previous Ubuntu release. There are many other variants of multimedia troubles.

Often (if not always) there are regressions with each new release, some of which are show stoppers. Such was the case back in the days of Edgy which sent me looking elsewhere for a distro that would support my hardware. Sabayon did it for me, & sustained support for 2 releases & then came a Sabayon release with a show stopper regression which sent me looking some more & I found Arch, I've stayed put since then.

When you spend days trying to get around a problem & can't you aren't a very happy or loyal user of any distro, or anything else for that matter.

linuxyogi
July 22nd, 2011, 12:42 PM
I don't understand why Linux distros in general, release buggy releases.

I don't believe that the developers don't know about the bugs when they approve the release.

Most of the distros I have tried were buggy when they were released. The only exception is Debian Stable & although bleeding edge Gentoo is quite stable.

Thats why I like the idea of a Rolling Release, it doesn't have to be bleeding coz stability is the goal here. That way the devs don't have to push a buggy release for 6 months deadline.

I think if Ubuntu overcomes this problem it will definitely gain more popularity.

Bodsda
July 22nd, 2011, 01:24 PM
If by success you mean its number of users.

I would say Ubuntu's success is due to its continual dumbing down of the user interface settings and initial configuration. Many people say that Ubuntu just 'works'. This statement is not true.

For my workload, Ubuntu does not work out of the box, it requires a lot of configuration, package installation, tweaking etc. It is also overly cumbersome, and gets in my way fairly often.

My synopsis: Ubuntu is great for basic use, but fails on the power user side due to needing to revert so many initial configurations, which in other distro's (gentoo, arch etc.) are unconfigured or configured for my type of workload (development).

In my honest, and totally 'own' opinion, Ubuntu's so called "success" is not a good thing for Linux in general. (Please note, this is my personal opinion only)

Bodsda


I don't understand why Linux distros in general, release buggy releases.

I don't believe that the developers don't know about the bugs when they approve the release.

Most of the distros I have tried were buggy when they were released. The only exception is Debian Stable & although bleeding edge Gentoo is quite stable.

Thats why I like the idea of a Rolling Release, it doesn't have to be bleeding coz stability is the goal here. That way the devs don't have to push a buggy release for 6 months deadline.

I think if Ubuntu overcomes this problem it will definitely gain more popularity.

Remeber the pulseaudio release? :) :) lol

leclerc65
July 22nd, 2011, 01:49 PM
Thats why I like the idea of a Rolling Release,
I just tried Mint LMDE. It installed just fine , then just after a few boots , the Main Menu went poof ...

Gremlinzzz
July 22nd, 2011, 01:57 PM
What's the real reason behind Ubuntu's Success ?
Me :D

Simian Man
July 22nd, 2011, 02:32 PM
The installer, which took a lot of the fear out of repartitioning and dual booting. Again if I remember, all you had to do was successfully shrink your Windows partition with Gparted or similar and then the installer would automatically create swap, format the remaining space and install Ubuntu.
Actually that is not true. Ubuntu's GUI installer, Ubiquity was introduced with 6.06 - after Ubuntu reached #1 on Distrowatch. Ubuntu used to use the old Debian installer which was significantly less user friendly than, for example, Mandrake/Mandriva's installer which even back then was on par with Ubuntu's installer now.


Ubuntu has conquered the Linux desktop. If anyone wants to argue that, stop to think about how many people you've met have heard of anything besides Ubuntu.
I don't think that's really true. At work we all use Linux and less than half of the people use Ubuntu.


Ubuntu was the first thing I tried that I actually got everything to work pretty easily. Now it's popular for mainstream distros to be user friendly. Ubuntu was user friendly back when Linux was still hard. In my opinion, this is what gave Ubuntu a huge boost, and they've done a great job at keeping the momentum going.
I'm glad Ubuntu worked so well for your hardware and got you into Linux, but this is just not true. If you compare the first couple releases of Ubuntu to its contemporaries, it's noticeably less user friendly - especially compared to Mandrake/Mandriva. Ubuntu got popular despite not being very user friendly and caught up later.


The restricted driver utility is pretty helpful for new users. When it works, that is.
That's true, that is a fine tool, but it was not introduced until 7.04, again after Ubuntu reached #1 on Distrowatch.

Ubuntu's ease of use, which I agree that now it's about as easy to use as other distros, had nothing to do with its popularity. I know it seems hard to believe, but it was entirely intangible reasons such as the marketing and hype, the idea of bug #1, the fact that they had a millionaire backing them and the free CDs and stuff like that.

linuxyogi
July 22nd, 2011, 03:39 PM
I just tried Mint LMDE. It installed just fine , then just after a few boots , the Main Menu went poof ...

I tried LMDE too. An update wiped out the running kernel itself.

I installed both ArchBang & Sabayon, which are both bleeding/rolling. Both are quite stable despite being bleeding edge. I like Sabayon (Gentoo) more then ArchBang.

http://www.sabayon.org/

linuxyogi
July 22nd, 2011, 03:43 PM
I don't think that's really true. At work we all use Linux and less than half of the people use Ubuntu.



"use Linux" meaning ?? Which distro ? RHEL ?

BrokenKingpin
July 22nd, 2011, 03:44 PM
IMO openSUSE's YAST makes it more user friendly than Ubuntu. I know most here won't agree to that.

openSUSE is quite nice now, but around the time Ubuntu came out I found SUSE to be a horrible distro. Nothing worked for me, and YAST was very buggy.

dagamant
July 22nd, 2011, 03:49 PM
I think that mainly linux users needed a distro that they could reccomend without fear of phone calls asking for help setting up a scanner or printer.

3Miro
July 22nd, 2011, 03:52 PM
I think Ubuntu is by far the easiest distro to use. Fedora comes close, but is not quite there. Some people list openSusa, however, twice I have tried to install openSusa and both times I failed when I had to install the prop ATI or Nvidia drivers ... and I am a Gentoo user, it is not like I don't basic Linux commands. I am sure I was doing something wrong, but whatever the "right" way is, it is definitely not "intuitive".

Ubuntu is much better in that respect.

Linuxratty
July 22nd, 2011, 03:56 PM
I just tried Mint LMDE. It installed just fine , then just after a few boots , the Main Menu went poof ...

I don't know why they release buggy stuff either.
I installed Mint,the natty version with Gnome. Last week Compiz stopped working.Nothing,natta,zero. I could reinstall it but I did not feel like dealing with it,so I'm back in Meerkat.

el_koraco
July 22nd, 2011, 04:06 PM
That's true, that is a fine tool, but it was not introduced until 7.04, again after Ubuntu reached #1 on Distrowatch.

Ubuntu's ease of use, which I agree that now it's about as easy to use as other distros, had nothing to do with its popularity. I know it seems hard to believe, but it was entirely intangible reasons such as the marketing and hype, the idea of bug #1, the fact that they had a millionaire backing them and the free CDs and stuff like that.

Oh yeah, I agree with that. I even remember people telling me to try Ubuntu in 2005 or 2006, giving me the free CD. I knew about Linux, hadn't used it, but if I did, with my internet speeds and caps at the time, I'd probably have ordered the CD. They had a pretty good cover.

I also don't think that it's more user friendly than other distros now, openSUSE is more GUI oriented, Mint has all the codecs, other Debian distros have cool installer scripts, and Fedora and its derivatives are more robust and reliable, plus Anaconda is a better installer.

walt.smith1960
July 22nd, 2011, 04:08 PM
I doubt Ubuntu has much to recommend it to the expert user but I doubt experts are the target market. A reformed Windows users can install and do common tasks on common hardware without compiling anything or editing config files. That seems like the goal of "easy" distros like Ubuntu & Mint.


If by success you mean its number of users.

I would say Ubuntu's success is due to its continual dumbing down of the user interface settings and initial configuration. Many people say that Ubuntu just 'works'. This statement is not true.

For my workload, Ubuntu does not work out of the box, it requires a lot of configuration, package installation, tweaking etc. It is also overly cumbersome, and gets in my way fairly often.

My synopsis: Ubuntu is great for basic use, but fails on the power user side due to needing to revert so many initial configurations, which in other distro's (gentoo, arch etc.) are unconfigured or configured for my type of workload (development).

In my honest, and totally 'own' opinion, Ubuntu's so called "success" is not a good thing for Linux in general. (Please note, this is my personal opinion only)

Bodsda



Remeber the pulseaudio release? :) :) lol

hhh
July 22nd, 2011, 07:39 PM
Actually that is not true. Ubuntu's GUI installer, Ubiquity was introduced with 6.06 - after Ubuntu reached #1 on Distrowatch. Ubuntu used to use the old Debian installer which was significantly less user friendly than, for example, Mandrake/Mandriva's installer which even back then was on par with Ubuntu's installer now.

You didn't pay attention. Although technically it was off topic, my post stated the reasons why I switched from Windows to Ubuntu, and that I didn't make the switch till Feisty (7.04).

Again OT, I left Ubuntu over a year ago as every one of the 6 month upgrades killed my computer. I was on sidux for a year and now squeeze.

leclerc65
July 22nd, 2011, 08:26 PM
"use Linux" meaning ?? Which distro ? RHEL ?
@linuxyogi
It's not me who said that.:D

perspectoff
July 22nd, 2011, 08:53 PM
Marketing and hype have a real purpose.

When you have "LoCo" 's and Ubuntu parties, it brings people together that like to get things done.

There is a very large Debian developer / Ubuntu crossover but, in reality, most packages are done by Debian developers.

It takes getting a certain number of end-users involved, which is what Ubuntu parties (and wot-wot) did, that keeps the momentum going, though. Now software developers are asked to create Debian packages for their Linux products so that it can be easily be installed in Debian/Ubuntu systems.

That level of clamor is what makes Ubuntu/Debian successful. It actually benefits the entire Debian ecosystem (which now includes Puppy and Mint and other related distros).

Having a benefactor that has high visibility is part of marketing. Apple is a good product, but it is marketed better than anything else. Microsoft has always been marketed well.

People are intrinsically stupid -- quality does not advertise itself, no matter what some people say.

The Ubuntu brand is what makes Ubuntu successful. Brand and product are sometimes equally important.

forrestcupp
July 22nd, 2011, 09:12 PM
I'm glad Ubuntu worked so well for your hardware and got you into Linux, but this is just not true. If you compare the first couple releases of Ubuntu to its contemporaries, it's noticeably less user friendly - especially compared to Mandrake/Mandriva. Ubuntu got popular despite not being very user friendly and caught up later.

Mandrake was actually one of them I tried before I got to Ubuntu. I will say that other than Ubuntu, it was the best distro I tried. But with Mandrake, there were a few things I couldn't get to work, and I was also turned off by the fact that you had to pay to use some of their repos. Mandrake was the only other distro I tried that wasn't a PITA, and I think it was the only other one I could even get to boot.

When I tried Ubuntu, it was very easy to install, and I was able to get everything to work. Yes, it was crappy compared to now, but compared to other distros back then, it was great.

ZarathustraDK
July 22nd, 2011, 09:25 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I joined Ubuntu (or rather installed it) because of its professed philosophy: I am what I am because of who we all are.

I know this generally applies to all open source software, but it was still nice to see a distro which banged that particular drum. It is rare to see technical things intertwine with the domain of philosophy, but open source and Ubuntu did it back then for me.

I hope it continues to be that way.

linuxyogi
July 26th, 2011, 04:03 AM
I had to reinstall Natty. After the installation completed I got a black screen. Tried updating from terminal & rebooted, tried installing the NVIDIA binary driver that failed too.

I dont understand what went wrong with installation. I cant be incompatible with my hardware. It was running fine.

I am back to 10.04. Installing from source the apps I want to be the latest.

nd456
July 26th, 2011, 05:06 AM
its about 50/50 between the corparations who develop major parts and the community to fill in the gaps

Aeighty
July 26th, 2011, 05:29 AM
Not allot to offer here but for me it was easy to find,recognize and get help for. I think the question should be, What are the real reasons for Ubuntu's success. The logo is pretty shlick as well ;)

cariboo
July 26th, 2011, 05:53 AM
I found that Ubuntu just works, on well supported hardware without having to do any extra tweaking, allowing me to get things done. The big factor for my changing from PCLOS to Ubuntu was Debian package management.

HermanAB
July 26th, 2011, 06:47 AM
The funny thing is that Fedora probably has more desktop users than Ubuntu - been around longer.

Fedora Forums:
Currently Active Users: 6511 (102 members and 6409 guests)

Ubuntu Forums:
Currently Active Users: 6635 (472 members and 6112 guests and 51 Spiders)

cloyd
July 26th, 2011, 04:17 PM
I haven't read all the posts, but just want to throw in my two cents worth. I am not an IT person, just a a (usually) reasonably intelligent user. I really got sick of Windows and linux was suggested to me. I 1) surfed the net for information and 2) looked at books in places like Barnes and Noble. The information available on the Canonical website, and information I found in books (ok, The Dummy's Guide to Linux) told me what I needed to know about dual booking, partitioning, live cd's and live usb's. When I went to use it, it all worked . . . well most of it. I had a glitch now and then. However, that is where the community comes in. There was the community, and the wiki's. They all help.

I have done some dumb things, like wipe out my master boot record. I've been able to get it back with the resources I just named.

It would be nice just to call someone and have them tell me how to "fix it." Honestly, since I can't call someone to tell me how to just fix it, I know more this way than I would have the other way, and I do think most help desk person with microsoft or even the manufacturers (not all . . . some are very good) were taught one solution: reinstall the driver, os, program, whatever. It is surprisingly very rare how rarely I hear "reinstall" suggested as a solution on the Ubuntu forums.

Lastly, I like the idea that a person like Shuttleworth would tackle the task to challenge microsoft and apple. The fact that he is behind Ubuntu made a difference in my choice when there was more than one distro to choose from.

del_diablo
July 26th, 2011, 07:34 PM
I jumped the Linux train back 3 years ago: And my experience back then was that Ubuntu had a better driver package than other distoes.
But the kicker is this: Before Ubuntu got a bit more common, there was less of the halfway propitary drivers backed in, and less workarounds buildtin to the distro.
When Ubunt first came around they did a rip of Sid and Experimental packages, ensured some stability, included a lot of binary workarounds, and it bloody worked.
There days "user friendly distos" are a lot more common, but Ubuntu now has a community, and a large user made repos, which gains it a large edge.

Thewhistlingwind
July 26th, 2011, 08:07 PM
I first heard of Ubuntu two years before I started using it.

The name stuck, for whatever reason.

Syndicalist
July 28th, 2011, 08:03 AM
Didnt Mint just beat Ubuntu, displacing it for the no1 spot?

What did Mint do differently from Ubuntu that made it more popular? They didnt force Unity on their user base? Included Medibuntu by default, something you cant do just by enabling restricted extras? Mint Menu is significantly nicer, more KDE like in Gnome using only 1 panel. Mint Update is also cool.

Edit: Yep, if you look at "last 3 months" Mint beats Ubuntu.

Suse is also catching up.

Shpongle
July 28th, 2011, 10:30 AM
The Debian base, the ubuntu community , shipit , marketing and shuttleworth's $$$ .

Erik1984
July 28th, 2011, 10:53 AM
I'm going to quote KiwiNZ here:

TV Coverage, seriously?

YesWeCan
July 28th, 2011, 10:59 AM
Didnt Mint just beat Ubuntu, displacing it for the no1 spot?

What did Mint do differently from Ubuntu that made it more popular? They didnt force Unity on their user base? Included Medibuntu by default, something you cant do just by enabling restricted extras? Mint Menu is significantly nicer, more KDE like in Gnome using only 1 panel. Mint Update is also cool.

Edit: Yep, if you look at "last 3 months" Mint beats Ubuntu.

Suse is also catching up.
I discovered Mint a few months ago. It is Ubuntu with a facelift. It seems Mint have made a better version of "linux for humans". It surprised me and made me wonder what Canonicals priorities really are.

Syndicalist
July 29th, 2011, 12:49 PM
I discovered Mint a few months ago. It is Ubuntu with a facelift. It seems Mint have made a better version of "linux for humans". It surprised me and made me wonder what Canonicals priorities really are.


Im a little irked by their (Cononicals)latest moves, which have made some of their offshoots that didnt go the Unity direction unstable....It almost makes me wonder if they did this on purpose, but I honestly cant imagine an influx TOWARDS unity as much as an outflux AWAY from it.....it looks like a cell phone! Its not even as nice looking as Android, and Im not sure who is telling them that we need to copy the look and feel of Ipad to stay relevant....but whoever is tell the company that should get fired. Linux needs its own unique look, and it needs to be as far from IOS as possible even if it has to be closer to Windows until they make something more original.

The mint Debian edition is pretty good, but they are missing some of the wifi drivers that you find in offshoots like Crunchbang or Liquid Lemur.....good alternatives to checkout. I thought about installing Gnome, or Nautilus with the E17 Window manager over it.....Its way easier to install and customize than with straight Debian.

On the other hand, I really like Mint Menu and Mint update, which they ported to their Debian edition.....so if somebody switched to crunchbang/lemur, then added a proper Gnome or Nautilus based desktop environment and ported Mint-menu and mint-updates, I think you could have a decent alternative to Ubuntu that is lighter and faster with comparable looks, and plays DVDs right out of the box.




Know what would look a lot nicer than that ugly strip down the side of unity? Docky. Docky is probably the cleanest looking dock there is. A few others are a little more graphically complex, but docky is stable and looks good and looks good even in panel mode....You didnt need a totally new desktop environment for that, just Gnome2 with docky and a customized command bar or Gnome-Do with icons would have done the trick BETTER.

Its a step forward for tablets and touch screens....which is where I get my conspiracy theory that the community is being used to test and refine an operating system which admittedly might do extremely well in the tablet PC market....but not because its the best laptop or desktop distro they were capable of making...they just need the wider audience for it to go prime time.

/end theory.

Randymanme
January 27th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Google also helps. Look up 'Linux' and Ubuntu ends up high on that list.
A huge plus is having a billionaire-who-is-also-an-astronaut as the companies founder.

Mark Shuttleworth was a successful businessperson and entrepreneur before ubuntu was an operating system. What came first was the idea, the vision. Then the research. Then the business plan. The actual Ubuntu operating system was born only after a long gestation.

It isn't that Mr. Shuttleworth's financial solvency helped to make (the) Ubuntu (operating system) successful, but rather that the management and other principles that he used to become financially solvent he also used to implement Ubuntu by implementing ubuntu.

C.S.Cameron
January 27th, 2012, 02:26 PM
I think the real reason behinds Ubuntu's success is this forum, the forum members and Ubuntu Staff.
If you need an answer it is usually available now.