PDA

View Full Version : Development Why use a distro like Ubuntu instead of an Rolling one?



aliasbody
December 11th, 2011, 11:51 PM
I have used a lot of distributions, but like a lot of people I've started with Ubuntu and praticly learned almost everything with him... but there is something I still don't understand...

I use Arch Linux for a while, but I still have Ubuntu just to look at Canonical's work with the newer versions of Ubuntu..

I have quit Ubuntu for 3 reasons:

Very Bloat
Very unupdated
PPA... just ppa
I still see a lot of Ubuntu posts everywhere, people happy whit it, Windows and Mac users that made the switch and are very happy (what makes me very happy seing people using Ubuntu).

I am a developer (a young one but still a developper), and I've choosen Arch Linux over Ubuntu for the updated packages that are more easy to get without using any kind of ppa.

So my question is... For a developper (game or software) like me that don't want to sell them but just have them working on the maximum OS available out there, why choose a distribution like Ubuntu over a distribution like Fedore, Debian and even Arch Linux.

PS : I am not saying that Ubuntu is horrible or something like that "I love ubuntu more than Arch Linux because it was the First one And I'll never forget it, I still use it on my laptop for everyday use", I am just asking for developers just to understand if there is something more that I missed since I am a very young developer and for me the most important are the technologies not the OS per se :S

oldos2er
December 12th, 2011, 04:02 AM
Not a support question; moved to Community Cafe.

cariboo
December 12th, 2011, 04:33 AM
I'd suggest if you want to help make Ubuntu better, why not take part in testing Precise.

I'm not sure why you seem to have a hard time with ppas, and then use arch where updates/upgrades are done form the command line.

I would suggest that the majority of Linux users, use it to get things done, and not worry about the latest and greatest like in Windows.

Primefalcon
December 12th, 2011, 05:11 AM
why choose a distribution like Ubuntu over a distribution like Fedore, Debian and even Arch Linux.

Fedora is about the Worst distro in existence and should be nuked out of existence...

Debian is cool but doesn't have the wide program support Ubuntu does nor the polish

Arch is cool, though same point as debian but I've used it and like it.... But I prefer Ubuntu myself...

fdrake
December 12th, 2011, 05:23 AM
Fedora is about the Worst distro in existence and should be nuked out of existence...

i personaly don't agree since i am using them both.. and that's what I am using right now to navigate the forum.. but that'sw just my opinion...

in the end they are all linux distributions if you are pointing to an audiance for you applications well the difference maybe in the support that companies give to one over the other one, for example if they make first a bin file in rmp or in deb instead, but that's not really a problem once you are able to build your app from source (when it's available!). The biggest issues that developers face i would say is with the libraries and the organization of files, which sometimes maybe different depending from the distro you are working with (and for this I personally blame all the distros -eachone of them- for not sharing/having detailed docs about their file-sys organization or because the keep changing them every new release!)

JDShu
December 12th, 2011, 05:30 AM
Distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora provide you with a fully functioning system with minimum hassle. Distros like Arch and Gentoo let you install exactly the packages you want, but require you to spend that time configuring your system to have exactly everything you need.

For most development, you don't need the absolute latest packages. If you use the latest Ubuntu/Fedora/OpenSuse etc. you are likely to have new enough packages to do what you need to. For those few packages where you need *bleeding edge* it's probably even more advantageous to compile them yourself or install them in some way that is not using the distro repositories. For example, the standard way to install the newest python development packages is to use pip. In addition, often you don't want to use the absolute latest version. It depends on your audience.

grahammechanical
December 12th, 2011, 02:48 PM
You said it yourself


like a lot of people I've started with Ubuntu and praticly learned almost everything with him

Ubuntu is the Linux for humans. You have grown up a little as a Linux user and you want something more than Ubuntu can offer you. That is fine. There is still a need for Ubuntu. Some users (like myself) are happy to have an OS that works well and looks good and lets them do the work on the computer that they want to do.

A lot of people buy computer devices not because they want a computer but because they like the design and it does what they want. They do not care anything about the OS. They want these devices just to use them. Ubuntu is being developed into an OS that can be put on the types of devices that people are now buying.

I would suggest that the thing that you have overlooked or missed is that with Ubuntu an ordinary person can get involved in its development without the need to be a computer programmer. In Ubuntu the word community does not only mean the community of computer programmers who develop it but community also means all those ordinary users of Ubuntu who are finding a way to join in the development of the Ubuntu Project.

Regards.

forrestcupp
December 12th, 2011, 04:27 PM
Neither Fedora nor Debian are real rolling distros. Some people who need to use their computers for important production, including developers, care a lot more about stability than bleeding edge. Some types of development depends on bleeding edge of certain technologies to stay ahead of the game. But that doesn't mean your whole system needs to be bleeding edge and unstable.

Like it was mentioned earlier, using PPAs in Ubuntu is way easier than using Arch. Doing it that way lets you pick and choose what you really need to be updated frequently.

juancarlospaco
December 12th, 2011, 04:59 PM
Arch uses a +180Mb ISO, i choose Ubuntu-Minimal which its a 10Mb ISO,
i quit Arch because its too bloated, and it doesnt have Security Reports like versioned Distros.

BrokenKingpin
December 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
I really like the concept of a rolling release, but in practice I end up with a broken machine within 2 months and have to rebuild it... so I find it easier to just stick with Xubuntu from release to release.

Also, some people don't have the time to setup Arch installs... even with Archbang it can take a while to build the system to your preference.



Arch uses a +180Mb ISO, i choose Ubuntu-Minimal which its a 10Mb ISO,
i quit Arch because its too bloated, and it doesnt have Security Reports like versioned Distros.
Arch itself is too bloated, or the ISO is just too big for you? Because if you think Arch is bloated you may consider seeing a therapist.

Linuxratty
December 12th, 2011, 06:53 PM
Fedora is about the Worst distro in existence and should be nuked out of existence...


I disagree. I happen to like Fedora.
If you are going to dis a distro,at least have the gonads to say why you dislike it.

bobsageek
December 12th, 2011, 07:10 PM
I stopped taking this whole thing seriously at bloated. Hard drives are insanely large and RAM is dirt cheap. Granted the hard drive situation(Thailand flooding issues) may cause some issues, but the 5-8GB the average Ubuntu install takes is hardly bloated if it's loaded with stuff most people use. This is more "my distro is more hardcore Linux than your distro" posturing.

beew
December 12th, 2011, 07:15 PM
This is more "my distro is more hardcore Linux than your distro" posturing.
Or someone using really ancient hardware..:D

bobsageek
December 12th, 2011, 07:20 PM
Or someone using really ancient hardware..:D

If it's so ancient you don't have a gig of RAM and 6 gigs of free space, that is fine, but that is not what the OP is saying.

aysiu
December 12th, 2011, 07:23 PM
So my question is... For a developper (game or software) like me that don't want to sell them but just have them working on the maximum OS available out there, why choose a distribution like Ubuntu over a distribution like Fedore, Debian and even Arch Linux. I think one simple answer is not everyone is a developer. I'm certainly not.

Canis familiaris
December 12th, 2011, 07:26 PM
I stopped taking this whole thing seriously at bloated. Hard drives are insanely large and RAM is dirt cheap. Granted the hard drive situation(Thailand flooding issues) may cause some issues, but the 5-8GB the average Ubuntu install takes is hardly bloated if it's loaded with stuff most people use. This is more "my distro is more hardcore Linux than your distro" posturing.

Well Hard disks may be insanely large but SSDs aren't. There are plenty of people who use SSDs and they are not cheap you know, a 60GB one set me back $125/₹6500 for a start.
Obviously though, I will agree the "bloat" with the drive space is barely a concern even with SSDs.


Arch uses a +180Mb ISO, i choose Ubuntu-Minimal which its a 10Mb ISO,
i quit Arch because its too bloated, and it doesnt have Security Reports
like versioned Distros.
There an Arch Netinstall ISO. Not sure what you mean by bloated, Arch is a distro you make, the default install is a bare minimum with just command line.

pelle.k
December 12th, 2011, 11:43 PM
I am a developer (a young one but still a developper), and I've choosen Arch Linux over Ubuntu for the updated packages that are more easy to get without using any kind of ppa.

So my question is... For a developper (game or software) like me that don't want to sell them but just have them working on the maximum OS available out there, why choose a distribution like Ubuntu over a distribution like Fedore, Debian and even Arch Linux.

Well, i'd turn turn your argument against you, and ask you why you develop applications that require using bleeding edge versions of certain packages for your application. If you say, but hey, i need the latest because the current technology doesn't provide what i need, then i'm afraid you're going to chase a tail (and so will the users of your application), for a very long time. It should be said though, that i understand you to a certain extent - especially if you're a game developer, since linux has nothing mature and complete like directx as of yet, you will simply just have to wait such technology out before attempting to release anything that can run on (all) linux distros.

Rolling distros, and cutting edge technology, is in a constant flux, and perhaps better suited to experimentation and testing (and a small number of individuals that can handle such conditions), hence the usage of development versions before settling on a stable ground where one can be as productive as possible, and everyone knows more or less what to expect for the foreseeable future, than the constant unknown.

Now, i'm not picking on arch here, since it's success is IMHO rather due to the extreme simplicity and flexibility of that particular distro, than the fact that it is a rolling release distro. In fact, i would LOVE it if arch linux settled on stable releases rather than the current rolling release system it uses now. That would probably not sit well with a large group of current arch linux users though ;)

bobsageek
December 13th, 2011, 02:05 AM
I'll second a lot of what pelle.k stated, the bleeding edge/rolling distro argument and development is tough sell, we support a huge dev community at my place and there is no way we could convince all those coders a rolling distro was in the their best interest. Hence why most professional devs want things like a foretasted release schedule and why Ubuntu has LTS releases.