PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu vs Libranet?



valnar
May 7th, 2005, 09:33 PM
My second post on this forum! \\:D/

I'm about to venture into the Linux world after being a Windows user since Windows 3.0 and DOS 3.3. I dunno why I never jumped on, in the mid 90's like all my friends - call me a procrastinator I suppose.

I've tried no less than 8 distros in the past 2 weeks since I started my search for the "one" that I want to learn Linux on. I almost ended up with Mepis, and currently am running (and liking) Kanotix. But since all the distros are so close to each other, it's practically splitting hairs on which one I should pick from a technical perspective. So the wonderful user forum of ubuntu is very enticing as a tie breaker.

I've read good things about the latest Libranet 3.0 and their control panel which would make life easy for me. It's also 100% Debian compatible, which ubuntu is not (no flames please - just quoting the reviews I've read). I guess ubuntu works best with its own servers and not necessarily the regular Debian servers?? :-? Libranet also makes recompling the kernel a point-and-click experience - one again, from what the reviews state.

But the latest Libranet 3.0 is one distro I can't try, cause it cost $$$, not that I'm adverse to that. I realize any opinion post on this forum would be pro ubuntu, but I was wondering if somebody familiar with both could give me the pros and cons of Libranet vs ubuntu or anything else?

Thanks,
Robert

TravisNewman
May 7th, 2005, 09:42 PM
The community is the biggest draw for Ubuntu. Also, if you really want to learn, the Libranet Control Panel won't help you learn LINUX, it will only help you learn how to use the Libranet Control Panel. Those kinds of proprietary solutions only segment the way things are done in the Linux world. And, yes, Libranet costs money. You can download and burn Ubuntu for free, or get cds shipped to you for no cost (not even shipping). Ubuntu is doing a lot in the way of getting Linux "ready for the desktop" as is frequently said, but without using proprietary tools like other distros.

While Ubuntu may not be 100% compatible with Debian (and I don't think ANYONE can claim 100% reasonably), they do take snapshots of Debian's testing branch, so anything in the Debian repos can be found in the Ubuntu repos.

Stormy Eyes
May 7th, 2005, 10:12 PM
As somebody who has used Libranet back when 2.7 was current, I think it bears mentioning that unlike Canonical, which focuses on distributing and supporting Ubuntu, the people who make Libranet make Libranet Linux primarily for their own benefit, and distribute Libranet to the public as a way to make a few extra bucks on the side. I was satisfied with Libranet when I used it; I didn't mind paying a few bucks, the mailing list was quite useful, and Libranet's Adminmenu was worse in terms of abstracting Linux away from the user than Red Hat's GUI tools; in fact, you could ignore Adminmenu and do everything yourself if you wanted to without Adminmenu freaking out.

Having said that, you're probably better off with Ubuntu, as Canonical isn't doing Ubuntu as a side job.

poofyhairguy
May 7th, 2005, 10:47 PM
I realize any opinion post on this forum would be pro ubuntu, but I was wondering if somebody familiar with both could give me the pros and cons of Libranet vs ubuntu or anything else?


Ubuntu is free and Libranet isn't. It basically comes down to "is the admin menu worh $80 to me?"

Look at screenshots and decide that for yoruself....

crun
May 7th, 2005, 11:32 PM
Libranet 2.8 was the first distro that I really stuck with for some time. It also introduced me to the wonderful Debian world, and the Admin menu had some great tools for administration and package handling. I feel it is underrated in the amount of attention it gets.

Having said that...

For me I always ran into problems using the Debian repositories after a few weeks (though this could be inexperience on my part). Apart from the kernel-compiling the Adminmenu (in 2.8 ) didn't do that much that the various Gnome utitlities can't do in Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't have full Debian compatibility, but its repositories are almost as extensive. Lastly, Ubuntu has a breakneck development speed that constantly improves its quality.

All these point don't take away that Libranet is a great distro, but for me Ubuntu just works better.

valnar
May 8th, 2005, 11:51 AM
Interesting, I never got an email saying there were replies here. :-?

Thanks for all the input. I think I may end up with Libranet primarily as a learning tool. If I make a change with the Adminmenu, 1, I'll know it will work, and 2, I can see what it did afterwards and make a mental note of it. I may end up at ubuntu again, or run it concurrently in a dual boot.

Thanks again.,

Robert

benplaut
May 8th, 2005, 07:14 PM
good, got another one! :)


"if in doubt, dual boot"... a good rule to live buy :razz:

Tomkat
May 9th, 2005, 02:04 AM
I honestly think that the libranet developers should give proper credit to Ubuntu. The latest version (3.0) has over 150 ububtu packages (if I remember well 157--yes I counted them) that integrate tightly with the tool they call "adminmenu" (the rest of the packages are mostly sarge). As to being 100% compatible, they use pinning to update and upgrade packages. Adminmenu cannot be installed in a sarge box, where is 100% compatibility? The xorg installation is ubuntu xorg packages. I am kinda **** they do not give proper credit. Apt-dist upgrade cannot be done to sarge. One can remove their repository from apt and use the sarge one but I am pretty sure it will break many things. I believe they should donate part of their revenues to ubuntu (and debian of course). I bought it, and I don't use it after I tried it.