PDA

View Full Version : OK Can We Please Stop With The Ubuntu X Versions



ejos
August 25th, 2006, 05:20 AM
Although it would indeed be nice to have all these different versions of Ubuntu, it's highly impractical to be able to create/maintain all these different versions. For example Ubunut Christian version that somebody suggested earlier. Ya that's cool, but how hard is it to install gnome-sword and maybe one or two other Christian programs? The downsides far outweigh the very little improvement in the default installation. I think we need to stick to a customizable base instead of making 20 million versions maintained by different people, that's gross. Maybe consider making a -desktop package that depends on these few extra programs would be more practical.

huwshimi
August 25th, 2006, 05:49 AM
I have often thought about installing the many different flavours of linux around for one reason or another, but when I think about it (or try them) I realise that there are things missing in these distros because the maintainers are working hard on specifics.

What I believe is more important than having multiple versions of Ubuntu (or other distros) is spending that time getting the software stable and having it at hand in the repositories. If we can all work together on one system rather than 10 then the final product will be far better.

Finally I don't intend to have a go at the guys that are doing such good work, and I also do like the fact that we have Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu as it seems to have made the specific distros cleaner. In fact I do use Demudi to record music for the simple reason that it just works.

keep up the good work everyone.

Cheers.

GameGod
August 25th, 2006, 06:01 AM
The way I see it is that these sub-distros just end up as a virtual package like "ubuntu-desktop" or "kubuntu-desktop" - right?

And if the maintainers of these distributions would like to improve the packages that their distribution revolves around, then we all win. (ie. the Ubuntu studio crowd has raised the bar with the audio production packages)

Anthem
August 25th, 2006, 06:24 AM
The way I see it is that these sub-distros just end up as a virtual package like "ubuntu-desktop" or "kubuntu-desktop" - right?

And if the maintainers of these distributions would like to improve the packages that their distribution revolves around, then we all win. (ie. the Ubuntu studio crowd has raised the bar with the audio production packages)
Agreed. It's not like they're forking the distro... as long as it's all one codebase, everybody wins.

gruvsyco
August 25th, 2006, 07:38 AM
I've often felt, myself, that Ubuntu would do well to at a minimum absorb Kubuntu and Xubuntu and strive for much tighter integration. I think most users probably have some Gnome and some KDE apps on their systems... it would be nice if they looked and felt more integrated when sticking within default Ubuntu themes.

leech
August 25th, 2006, 08:35 AM
I agree with this. I know Mandrake long ago created the Galaxy theme for both QT and GTK so that all the applications looked the same in KDE or Gnome. There really does need to be more themes that are cross-toolkit.

Leech

Metacarpal
August 25th, 2006, 06:14 PM
I've often felt, myself, that Ubuntu would do well to at a minimum absorb Kubuntu and Xubuntu and strive for much tighter integration. I think most users probably have some Gnome and some KDE apps on their systems... it would be nice if they looked and felt more integrated when sticking within default Ubuntu themes.

I have to disagree. 'Absorption' of Xubuntu - that is, having it only available as the xubuntu-desktop metapackage instead of being available as a separate install CD - could potentially hurt users who are running on very low-end machines, older laptops, and the like. The difference in RAM requirements and hard drive space alone make having Xubuntu a separate install CD worthwhile.

Not everybody has room for multi-desktop installations. For example, I can fit both Gnome and Xfce on my / partition, but Gnome + KDE? Disk full.

Edit: re-reading your post, I think I missed your point entirely. :-k

evillawngnome
August 25th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Im not a developer, but to me it seems like rather than having separate install discs for each desktop, it should be an option in the installer, kind of like suse.

As for xubuntu, i love it and couldnt do without it. I use it on an old 300mhz machine with 128MB of ram.

G Morgan
August 25th, 2006, 10:29 PM
Ah yes the lastest one size fits all thread. There is little chance of these distros actually getting too far from the main Ubuntu. One distro does not mean better, in fact it flies in the face of all known knowledge of how markets work. If one size fits all is truely the best way then why did the USSR collapse.

Kernel Sanders
August 25th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Ah yes the lastest one size fits all thread. There is little chance of these distros actually getting too far from the main Ubuntu. One distro does not mean better, in fact it flies in the face of all known knowledge of how markets work. If one size fits all is truely the best way then why did the USSR collapse.

I think your missing the point.

Imagine having dinner at a restaurant, and then asking to see the desert menu. Instead of showing you a menu of say 10-20 mouthwatering deserts designed to suit everybodies pallet, they give you a book thats "Tolstoy Long" with every desert they can possibly think of, and lots of permiatations of the same desert.

Thats what people are getting at. Choice is a good thing, but too much choice can be confusing, and ultimnately spread potential resources too thinly.

Nobody's saying "one size fits all".

Adrenal
August 25th, 2006, 11:35 PM
You don't have the faintest idea of what open source is, do you?

richbarna
August 26th, 2006, 12:16 AM
I go for as many different versions of Ubuntu on different cd's as possible. If people prefer complete kde then get kubuntu, the same goes for gnome and xfce.
I have both large powerful machines and lowend machines and laptops, and the choice is a good thing.

I haven't tried edubuntu and so forth, and if the Christian edition get's more people interested in Linux then that's cool too.

If I went to Canonical to download an iso and there were ten to choose from, It would take me all of about 20 seconds to ignore the ones that don't appeal to me.

That's the great thing about choice.

Brunellus
August 26th, 2006, 12:40 AM
Although it would indeed be nice to have all these different versions of Ubuntu, it's highly impractical to be able to create/maintain all these different versions. For example Ubunut Christian version that somebody suggested earlier. Ya that's cool, but how hard is it to install gnome-sword and maybe one or two other Christian programs? The downsides far outweigh the very little improvement in the default installation. I think we need to stick to a customizable base instead of making 20 million versions maintained by different people, that's gross. Maybe consider making a -desktop package that depends on these few extra programs would be more practical.
Ubuntu--as officially maintained and supported by Canonical--is a single-CD distribution. End of story.

The proliferation of *buntus is more to do with that very basic physical limitation than any conspiracy to fragment the userbase needlessly.

In a sense, the "integration" that everybody really wants is already here: simply download Ubuntu as officially maintained. No further "integration" is necessary.

Taken to its logical extreme, your argument would suggest that there really should be only one linux distribution. Have you considered how it might be possible to direct research, testing, and quality control over such a large project in the absence of real coercive authority? It's nearly impossible.

The "fragmentation" that everybody complains about is the reason that advances can be rapidly developed, tested, and propagated.

The marketplace will compel its own choices. In 1981, there was a choice in operating systems that could run on x86: Digital's CP/M, IBM's PC-DOS, and Micro-Soft's (dig the period branding) MS-DOS. confusion! Somehow, a standard did emerge....

Yossarian
August 26th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Adrenal
You don't have the faintest idea of what open source is, do you?


That's childish and lame.

As for the original topic, my understanding is that they're basically just making a package and offering customized install discs for convenience purposes. So no forking, no wasted effort. Sounds good to me.

Also, its different people making all these flavours, so no one needs to worry about the Ubuntu developers overexerting themselves.

Jucato
August 26th, 2006, 04:35 AM
I think the thread was started on a presumption that The Ubuntu Christian Edition, and probably some other *buntus, is an official Ubuntu project. It is not. There is only one Ubuntu distribution, and 3 "official" derivative distributions/projects. All the rest are commmunity/3rd-party projects. Their maintenance is solely up to the project head and in no way affects the development of the official distribution(s).

Yossarian
August 26th, 2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Fenyx I think the thread was started on a presumption that The Ubuntu Christian Edition, and probably some other *buntus, is an official Ubuntu project. It is not. There is only one Ubuntu distribution, and 3 "official" derivative distributions/projects. All the rest are commmunity/3rd-party projects. Their maintenance is solely up to the project head and in no way affects the development of the official distribution(s).

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Ubuntu is the ham and egger, and everything else is someone else's problem.

E-werd
August 26th, 2006, 05:17 AM
Here is my two cents on the issue...

There should be only a few "official" Ubuntu distributions, these distributions should be focused on graphical user environments (XFCE, GNOME, KDE, etc). The rest of the 3rd-party projects should be in the universe or multiverse repositories as desktop packages (christian-desktop, studio-desktop, etc). This way, all are available to all, but focus is not taken away from the main mission of Ubuntu itself.

As for the installation process, perhaps have "official" project distribution leaders create distribution-specific iso's/cd's and have them all available from the Ubuntu website, or some central community website. The rest can fend for themselves or, if they choose, create iso's/dvd's that are not officially supported.

If at any time a user of one of the official distributions wants to switch to a 3rd-party project, they can do so through the repositories or select an iso/cd from a 3rd-party project that supplies one.

I understand that Canonical should not spend money and time supporting every 3rd-party project that spawns from Ubuntu. I also understand that the 3rd-party projects deserve the right to be what they want to be. After all, that is what Open Source is all about, right? \\:D/

If one of these 3rd-party projects strays so far from the pack that they eventually become a major distribution separate from Ubuntu, great! So long as they give credit where credit is due, of course.

pianoboy3333
August 26th, 2006, 05:23 AM
Well maybe on the live cd you can choose what desktop package you want, so if you want christian-desktop, or kubuntu-desktop, it could just download it from the internet or something.... just an idea...

Jucato
August 26th, 2006, 06:10 AM
hm... why would the other community editions even be in the repositories? Anything that Canonical will be putting in its servers will have a sort of "mark" of endorsement from them, whether they like it or not. And that's not a good thing if we're going to talk about 3rd party editions/distributions.

If people want to get Ubuntu Christian Edition, or nUbuntu or Nubuntu, or Fluxbuntu, etc., they can do so using the instructions or CD's provided by those projects. These are community editions/distros/projects, developed by people outside of Canonical/Ubuntu. Ubuntu cannot be held responsible for these.

aysiu
August 26th, 2006, 06:16 AM
I think your missing the point.

Imagine having dinner at a restaurant, and then asking to see the desert menu. Instead of showing you a menu of say 10-20 mouthwatering deserts designed to suit everybodies pallet, they give you a book thats "Tolstoy Long" with every desert they can possibly think of, and lots of permiatations of the same desert.

Thats what people are getting at. Choice is a good thing, but too much choice can be confusing, and ultimnately spread potential resources too thinly.

Nobody's saying "one size fits all".
I think you're missing the point. There are only four versions of Ubuntu: Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu. That's not Tolstoy long at all. That's four. I would not care if a restaurant had four desserts. I'd actually like if it had more.

The other Linux distros that aren't Ubuntu-related would be other restaurants.

Kernel Sanders
August 26th, 2006, 03:09 PM
I think you're missing the point. There are only four versions of Ubuntu: Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu. That's not Tolstoy long at all. That's four. I would not care if a restaurant had four desserts. I'd actually like if it had more.

The other Linux distros that aren't Ubuntu-related would be other restaurants.

Then you misread my post :(

richbarna
August 26th, 2006, 03:44 PM
I think you're missing the point. There are only four versions of Ubuntu: Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and Edubuntu. That's not Tolstoy long at all.

It would be if you put them all in the same dessert bowl, I think that was his point.

aysiu
August 26th, 2006, 05:35 PM
It would be if you put them all in the same dessert bowl, I think that was his point.
No, it wasn't, but good of you to give the benefit of the doubt:
Imagine having dinner at a restaurant, and then asking to see the desert menu. Instead of showing you a menu of say 10-20 mouthwatering deserts designed to suit everybodies pallet, they give you a book thats "Tolstoy Long" with every desert they can possibly think of, and lots of permiatations of the same desert.

G Morgan
August 26th, 2006, 08:41 PM
People should let evolution deal with these things. If the other *buntu projects are mostly worthless they will die or be confined to niche status. If they get big followings then they are valuable. Theres no chance of something irrelevant becoming distracting because it simply is well below the scope of things and if it ever rises then it has value.

Really there is no issue over the number of projects. Ubuntu is already taking a strong lead in the desktop market and its accelerating if the number of new avatars I have to keep adblocking is anything to go by (my totally unscientific measure of popularity). Most non users will be lucky to have heard of Ubuntu and will have no chance of hearing about CE or any other niche distro. Only current users know of the extras.

Don't forget that every project that pops up implicitly takes responsibility for niche packages on the repos so all the extra distros will only improve software quality without getting in the way.

alexandermimix
August 27th, 2006, 12:39 AM
natural selection anyone? Deviations are natural, in fact they are needed for the evolution of the species, only the strongest ultimatally survives anyway.

aysiu
August 27th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Then you misread my post :(
How so?

Desserts at one restaurant - Ubuntu's flavors
Other restaurants - Other distros

Is your analogy different from that?

alexandermimix
August 27th, 2006, 02:16 AM
I could go a choc nut sundae right now i must say....

johnbl
September 13th, 2006, 01:28 AM
Sorry Guys and Galls but could I suggest your all missing a critical point.
Ububtu IS great. But not ready for ' production ' environments as when things fail help is more than a wish away and there is the nub.
I have a system - notebook - that refuses to boot. Apparently a full disk but no matter what I remove after finding my way jerkily into a root position - nothing changes. Login loops, period, no errors, no outward signs, just loops. Help is of the you just variety or insulting - clean up your English type comment. My language skills seemed to have got my through University [ Accounting / Law / IT ]OK and post stuff so I'll pass there maybe!

My system is only partial production so my daily bread doesn't depend on it and I'm sure I'll get it up ' eventually. But not good enough for a user whos life is in that there box!

A crawl though postings shows my problem is not unique but no clear language help seems available of the type one provides for Windows users that assume nothing, the ' click Start > Programs > ... ' variety for any problems.
I most appreciate the work involved in developing this OS and the many great APPS. Some of the How to Tips are equally great.
But when I see an assist like
[ sudo apt-get clean ] Please, a new user with a dead / non cooperating system, how does this help, key stroke by key stroke? Equally without any indication as to a reference source for these commands, development of my skills are both a tad hindered and I'm just ' trying ' stuff rather than being able to analyze and appreciate the source problem / s.
It isn't that the resolve suggested is wrong. So much as simply reminiscent of those great old and not so old Japanese manuals and so much IT technical publication. When you know enough not to need the information, it makes perfect sense!
Bottom line, a rethink and better use of the many talented people to a common platform and tools to keep it running. Then production quality / level is reached and users will mushroom as never before for ANY OS.
Just my 2 cents worth.

ComplexNumber
September 13th, 2006, 01:35 AM
they should have stopped at ubuntu. its a complete waste of resources having all these silly versions such as kubuntu, xubuntu, christian edition, etc. what a waste! they should concentrate on making ubuntu, and ONLY ubuntu, into a first class distro.

jdong
September 13th, 2006, 01:44 AM
they should have stopped at ubuntu. its a complete waste of resources having all these silly versions such as kubuntu, xubuntu, christian edition, etc. what a waste! they should concentrate on making ubuntu, and ONLY ubuntu, into a first class distro.

I won't speak for the christian edition and others, but I will speak for kubuntu and xubuntu in that they are nothing but a convenient bundle of packages that fit on one install CD.

If you carry on the argument about ONLY ubuntu, why not just have the 25MB netinstall CD, then have the user type in "apt-get install {insert_your_favorite}buntu-desktop"? ;)

If you take the alternate approach, you end up with something like OpenSuse or Fedora that comes on 5 or more CD's, and asks quite a number of extra (possibly confusing) questions during setup regarding what packages to install.

I don't think kubuntu/xubuntu are overlapping or redundant or inefficient -- if you follow their development it's not any different than Redhat/Novell having a separate set of people working on KDE versus GNOME...


P.S. I was thinking about some "jdong edition" Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS respins (no, I wouldn't actually brand it with my name... suggestions welcome ;)) configured the way I like it -- Java, Flash, w32codecs, mp3, and so on , then distributing them via bittorrent, but apparently a new edition of Ubuntu is not too appreciated at the moment.... Oh well, back to the drawing board.

darkhatter
September 13th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I use to agree with you but I use kubuntu so I guess I have to keep them and fluxubuntu just came out lol