Things about Ubuntu that make you go "Grrr..." [Archive]

View Full Version : Things about Ubuntu that make you go "Grrr..."

supernaut

May 8th, 2005, 08:25 AM

Don't get me wrong - Ubuntu is a pretty good distro, and it does a lot of things right. At the same time though it does a lot of things wrong, some major, some minor.

Here's my list of annoyances...

1. Fonts are ugly. Compare them to OS X or Windows, or even Fedora (although others may disagree with me here). Add as many translucency effects and drop shadows as you like, but at the end of the day, fonts are most important part of the desktop aesthetic.

2. Openoffice.org and uninstallation. I accept that Ubuntu includes the OOo suite, which I personally think is bloated, poorly integrated rubbish. So I install the excellent Abiword. However, when I try to remove OOo, apt claims it wants to remove "ubuntu-desktop". Eek! If I didn't know better I'd think it was going to uninstall the whole system (what does uninstalling ubuntu-desktop remove anyway? Just the meta-package?). Pretty user-unfriendly, to say the least.

3. Inconsistent branding. OK, so I have a Floppy Formatter, a Resolution Switcher etc., but for some god forsaken reason what should be titled "Update Manager" is strangely titled "Ubuntu Update Manager" and uglified with Ubuntu logos. The same goes for "Ubuntu Device Manager". It's inconsistent, bizzare and unprofessional. It also has the effect of pushing the programs to the bottom of their respective menus, which isn't very natural. Isn't a "Copyright Canonical" in the About dialog enough to show that something is an in-house creation? After all, Ubuntu is already branded over GDM and the desktop background. The same can be said for "About GNOME" in the system menu (shouldn't this be just integrated into "About Ubuntu") and the same goes for the foot icon on the applications menu. There isn't any need for an icon there (at least in the default setting, with it stretched along the top with drop down menus).

4. The Firefox logo is ugly. I know that the official one can't be used, but the Debian one currently used by Ubuntu is hideous and doesn't fit in with the rest of the icon set. Not to mention that it clashes by being the same as the "Connect to Server" AND "Internet" one, except more ugly. Epiphany is nicer anyway, and comes with it's own, pretty logo that's free of licensing issues. Hint hint. ;)

5. Evolution sucks. It really does. I'm willing to wager most Ubuntu users want their mail and not much else. Evolution is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a single sparrow. It's just crammed with features that most people will never use, and it has more than a few flaws of it's own. Unfortunately, I know not much can be done due to GNOME adopting it and depending on its ridiculous heap of dependencies.

6. Evolution appears in two places in the menu. I see the reasoning, but it's uneccessary and makes Evolution even more annoying to those who don't use it.

7. GNOME Bittorrent is called GNOME Bittorrent. Just "Bittorrent client" makes a lot more sense, or better yet, getting rid of the whole app and just having an integrated Bittorrent client in the download manager of the web browser.

8. Doesn't "Add/Remove Programs" make Synptic redundant, or vice versa? Either way, it's a mess.

9. What happened to menu editing? How the hell do I edit my menus? It's pretty embarassing that the 2.x series of GNOME is at 2.10 and is without a menu editing system. That said, the system that appeared it 2.8 as well as the one that appeared in 2.4 (?) and earlier, although by no means perfect, were far, far better than having nothing at all. The inconsistency here is a pretty big flaw on GNOME's part - this is something that should have been sorted out three years ago.

10. Synaptic is a bit unweildy. It's better than nothing, but it's a bit involved and I doubt my mother for example would have a clue as to how to install anything with it.

Finally, I know it's free, and I appreciate that. Plus, the fact that I can only think of ten annoyances is pretty good, and most of them are fixable with a little thought.

So what bugs you about Ubuntu?

Ubunted

May 8th, 2005, 08:45 AM

Java. I HATE installing Java. Whenever I install Ubuntu, it's a repeating battle to find that repository I used before, or instructions that don't take half an hour and don't work in the end.

Really, this could be solved by simply replacing the Java installation instructions in ubuntuguide.org with a simple repository listing and apt-get command.

poofyhairguy

May 8th, 2005, 08:52 AM

I don't disagree with your gripes, but remember that this is only the second release. Amazing it is for a version 2.0.

Luckily the community has risen to the challenge and has fixed many of these problems...

1. Fonts are ugly. Compare them to OS X or Windows, or even Fedora (although others may disagree with me here). Add as many translucency effects and drop shadows as you like, but at the end of the day, fonts are most important part of the desktop aesthetic.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=20976&highlight=pixel

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=27665&highlight=pixel

(what does uninstalling ubuntu-desktop remove anyway? Just the meta-package?).

Yes. I uninstall it ALL the time. Its does nothing (except make it easy to redo your Ubuntu install. If you think you are missing something, then you install Ubuntu-desktop and Ubuntu will install everything it does when it first installs itself. Its also nice to be able to install a development version (say an array CD) with the server install, and then make the first time you install the ubuntu-desktop be the time with the newest packages the internet has...

3. Inconsistent branding. OK, so I have a Floppy Formatter, a Resolution Switcher etc., but for some god forsaken reason what should be titled "Update Manager" is strangely titled "Ubuntu Update Manager" and uglified with Ubuntu logos. The same goes for "Ubuntu Device Manager". It's inconsistent, bizzare and unprofessional. It also has the effect of pushing the programs to the bottom of their respective menus, which isn't very natural. Isn't a "Copyright Canonical" in the About dialog enough to show that something is an in-house creation? After all, Ubuntu is already branded over GDM and the desktop background. The same can be said for "About GNOME" in the system menu (shouldn't this be just integrated into "About Ubuntu") and the same goes for the foot icon on the applications menu. There isn't any need for an icon there (at least in the default setting, with it stretched along the top with drop down menus).

Yeah....I don't like the update manager much either. Oh well, don't need it.

4. The Firefox logo is ugly. I know that the official one can't be used, but the Debian one currently used by Ubuntu is hideous and doesn't fit in with the rest of the icon set. Not to mention that it clashes by being the same as the "Connect to Server" AND "Internet" one, except more ugly. Epiphany is nicer anyway, and comes with it's own, pretty logo that's free of licensing issues. Hint hint. ;)

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=30133&highlight=firefox+icon

5. Evolution sucks. It really does. I'm willing to wager most Ubuntu users want their mail and not much else. Evolution is like using a nuclear bomb to kill a single sparrow. It's just crammed with features that most people will never use, and it has more than a few flaws of it's own. Unfortunately, I know not much can be done due to GNOME adopting it and depending on its ridiculous heap of dependencies.

Thank goodness for Thunderbird....

7. GNOME Bittorrent is called GNOME Bittorrent. Just "Bittorrent client" makes a lot more sense, or better yet, getting rid of the whole app and just having an integrated Bittorrent client in the download manager of the web browser.

I dislike the Gnome client. Everytime I uninstall bittorrent (which takes away the Gnome client) and install Bittornado-gui (my third favorite program). Never tried the gnome one.....

8. Doesn't "Add/Remove Programs" make Synptic redundant, or vice versa? Either way, it's a mess.

No. Synaptic is a power tool (a wonderfully simple power tool). The other thing is meant to be less intimidating (I LOVE synaptic. Love seeing "16000+ packages" all for me to install. Life is too short.....)

9. What happened to menu editing? How the hell do I edit my menus? It's pretty embarassing that the 2.x series of GNOME is at 2.10 and is without a menu editing system. That said, the system that appeared it 2.8 as well as the one that appeared in 2.4 (?) and earlier, although by no means perfect, were far, far better than having nothing at all. The inconsistency here is a pretty big flaw on GNOME's part - this is something that should have been sorted out three years ago.

Sorry. Easy fix.

http://ubuntuguide.org/

10. Synaptic is a bit unweildy. It's better than nothing, but it's a bit involved and I doubt my mother for example would have a clue as to how to install anything with it.

Thats why something else is being developed. Synaptic is a tool not connected to Ubuntu, so they are trying to make something in-house. As I said, I think Synaptic is great. It takes the edge of apt-get. And its not too hard for many people to use (I have my non geek friends use it all the time. Some really like it.). Its just intimidating. So something else for people like you mom is being made (no comments from me on how good it is, I love synaptic).

So what bugs you about Ubuntu?

The fact that my Orinoco card doesn't have the monitor mode patch on its driver out of the box (I'm going to file like 100 annoying bug reports about that if the preview release comes and its not patched) Not really, but it frustrates me.

The fact that dma isn't turned on by default.

The fact that the Bitornado in the Universe is broke (thankyou jdong for your backprts once again!)

supernaut

May 8th, 2005, 09:13 AM

I don't disagree with your gripes, but remember that this is only the second release. Amazing it is for a version 2.0.

Well, the technology behind has been in the works for a lot longer than that.

Thanks for your reply, it's nice to see that most of the problems are easily fixed. However, that makes one think that they should be done at the distributor's end rather than the user's. Although that menu editing solution is nice in a hacky way, the problem still remains. It's the lack of consistency through GNOME releases that bugs me on that one.

Thunderbird is a decent replacement, but Evolution still can't be removed (or can it? I was under the impression the rest of GNOME depended on it). Also, you say Synaptic is a power tool, but shouldn't the power tool be apt itself? Having two GUIs for the same purpose is daft. Also, I wasn't aware a replacement for Synaptic was being developed inhouse, that's nice to know. :)

supernaut

May 8th, 2005, 09:17 AM

One other annoyance: the Help system is a bit of a mess, and is incomplete. I know this is a problem with a lack of volunteers on the GNOME end, but it could do with a search function at least.

Professor X

May 8th, 2005, 09:39 AM

1. I can't make sense of the ubuntu method of 'spatial browsing'. I personally like regular spatial nautilus, but can understand why people new to linux dislike it. Why not switch to browser mode my default? It should make the easiest transition for users used to the windows file browser.

2. Sound doesn't work properly in Gnome out of the box. I know there are several easy to follow guides that resolve this issue, but why require the extra work? New users who install, say realplayer, aren't going to be happy when the app refuses to run until they go through this fix.

3. The 'build-essential' package should be installed by default.

bigbangbigbigbang

May 8th, 2005, 09:54 AM

That it is not 100% compatible with Debian.
This one really sucks. So if you find some broken packages in the unmaintaned universe/multiverse quite often it is difficult to replace them with the MAINTAINED versions of the same packages from Debian unstable. Of course it is doable SOMEHOW most of the time (I have mixed Sid with Ubuntu since the beginning) but many times it was really difficult and I have been able to resolve the dependency etc. issues only because I have been using Debian unstable for more than 5 years every day, all day.
It is even more difficult to run Sid and just install some needed packages from Ubuntu. This incompatibility IMHO could be and should be avoided.

The other thing that sucks is that there IS a universe with so many valuable packages, but it is unmaintained. I understand why (not enough ressources, and the need for regular releases), but this problem could be eased by maintaining 100% compatibility with Debian unstable.

Please don't get me wrong, I love Ubuntu and find it a really great distro. I only find it would be much better for both Debian and Ubuntu (and for their USERS in the first place) if this compatibility were in place.

weekend warrior

May 8th, 2005, 11:22 AM

A few things that might help you suprernaut:

for fonts-> Hoary clear type fonts (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=20976)

for Firefox -> take back the firefox logo (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=30133)

for menus/branding -> menu editor project (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=67)

for help -> Gnome 2.10 user's guide (http://www.gnome.org/learn/)

For the others you mentioned like email clients, torrents, word processing there are some nice alternatives just an apt-get away: Thunderbird, Azureus, Abiword...

You just need to look around. I've found this forum is a wonderful resource if you spend time with it. The tools are there to change or improve things if you know where to look. Yes it's a bit of work but then again it's all free - don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I understand why you're posting these things but to be honest these kind of threads have a tendency to become negative and depressing. Isn't it better to just ask for help to improve things and try to help each other out so we can all have the best ubuntu for our particular tastes and needs?

weekend warrior

May 8th, 2005, 11:42 AM

I know poofyhairguy beat me to most of those suggestions, just wanted to make it a little easier for anyone else who comes by this. :)

poofyhairguy

May 8th, 2005, 11:42 AM

at there IS a universe with so many valuable packages, but it is unmaintained. I understand why (not enough ressources, and the need for regular releases), but this problem could be eased by maintaining 100% compatibility with Debian unstable.

A. Universe is maintained.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/MOTU

B. The only thing that could be 100% compatible with Sid is Sid. You change anything (which Ubuntu has done for good reasons such as xorg) that you can't have 100% compatibility.

bigbangbigbigbang

May 8th, 2005, 01:14 PM

A. Universe is maintained.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/MOTU

B. The only thing that could be 100% compatible with Sid is Sid. You change anything (which Ubuntu has done for good reasons such as xorg) that you can't have 100% compatibility.

A. at http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/components you can read:

"universe" component

The universe component is a snapshot ........
............All of this software is compiled against the libraries and using the tools that form part of main, so it should install and work well with the software in main, but it comes with no guarantee of security fixes and support. The universe component includes thousands of pieces of software. Through universe, users are able to have the diversity and flexibility offered by the vast open source world on top of a stable Ubuntu core.

....Canonical does not provide a guarantee of regular security updates for software found in universe but will provide these where they are made available by the community. Users should understand the risk inherent in using packages from the universe component.

B. Compatibility does NOT mean that it has to be identical. But the elements (i.e. packages) should be interchangeable, installable on both.

poofyhairguy

May 8th, 2005, 10:48 PM

A. at http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/components you can read:

"universe" component

The universe component is a snapshot ........
............All of this software is compiled against the libraries and using the tools that form part of main, so it should install and work well with the software in main, but it comes with no guarantee of security fixes and support. The universe component includes thousands of pieces of software. Through universe, users are able to have the diversity and flexibility offered by the vast open source world on top of a stable Ubuntu core.

....Canonical does not provide a guarantee of regular security updates for software found in universe but will provide these where they are made available by the community. Users should understand the risk inherent in using packages from the universe component.

So? All that means is the the Universe doesn't get support from the main Ubuntu dev team. Don't blaim them, they need to divide and conquer or the six month release thing would go out the window.

What I pointed out was that there IS a volunteer team (like ALL of Debian) that provides updates. Are they perfect? No, no one is, but the Universe DOES get support.

In fact, it gets support from "official" members of the Ubuntu community. Really nice folks. I guess you could argue all day that "if the paid Ubuntu devs don't support the Universe than it isn't supported to me." but in truth the Universe gets the exact kind of support Debian does (volunteers) and thousands of businesses trust Debian everyday.

All of those bolded parts are meant to reduce liability for the main Ubuntu devs. Good idea I'd say.....

B. Compatibility does NOT mean that it has to be identical. But the elements (i.e. packages) should be interchangeable, installable on both.

No compatibility means that each (Sid and Ubuntu) would have to have the same libraries, the same apps at the same time in development. If that was the case, there would be no point to Ubuntu- everyone should just use Sid instead.

In order to civilize Sid (make it a stable desktop), the Ubuntu devs have had to change it. Its inevitable. The change is what brings about the incompatibilities.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Ubuntu to be perfectly compatible with Sid without being almost exactly like Sid (and it can never be compatible with Sarge because it was never based on Sarge). In order to do its own things, Ubuntu has to break compatibility. EVERY Debian based distro does, they just don't admit it. I've had compatibility problem with MEPIS, Libranet, Xandros. At least Ubuntu has the wisdom to have its own repo, which makes it so that incompatibility doesn't matter.

If you want compatible with Sid, use Sid. But note that Sid changes A LOT (or will soon after Sarge is released) and the Sid of one day might not be compatible with the Sid of the next. The way of the binary world....

nocturn

May 9th, 2005, 09:17 AM

I think Ubuntu is great, specially considering it is just at the second release.

The only issue I have is the lack of (timely) security updates to FireFox (which is very bad)
Other then that it would go near perfection ;-)

May 9th, 2005, 11:03 AM

"So what bugs you about Ubuntu?"

People who complain about things instead of getting involved to fix them.

"Java. I HATE installing Java. Whenever I install Ubuntu, it's a repeating battle to find that repository I used before, or instructions that don't take half an hour and don't work in the end.

Really, this could be solved by simply replacing the Java installation instructions in ubuntuguide.org with a simple repository listing and apt-get command."

You should speak to the maintainer of the unofficial ubuntuguide about that. Better still, we should get Sun to change their backwards licencing policies so that the proprietairy java can be distributed alongside the free implementations.

Knome_fan

May 9th, 2005, 11:14 AM

"So what bugs you about Ubuntu?"

People who complain about things instead of getting involved to fix them.

Then I'm sorry that I'll have to bug you.

What bugs me the most at the moment is that a very annoying bug in Kubuntu, namely an update, that doesn't work and that will kill your settings if you try to force it anyway, has caused trouble for several weeks now and still is neither fixed, nor has there been any effort to fix it, as far as I can see.

Other than that, ubuntu and kubuntu rock.

TravisNewman

May 9th, 2005, 11:26 AM

Knome_fan

May 9th, 2005, 11:30 AM

Hm, I don't know if you addressing me, but yes, there have been several bug reports about the matter I'm talking about:

https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10035

TravisNewman

May 9th, 2005, 11:31 AM

Not addressing anyone in particular. Just a general, all around question. You've taken the time to at least see that they've been filed, and no reason to double file ;) So good for you!

supernaut

May 9th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Not addressing anyone in particular. Just a general, all around question. You've taken the time to at least see that they've been filed, and no reason to double file ;) So good for you!
Well, most of my complaints wouldn't be considered bugs in the traditional sense of the word in the software world. I'm guessing something like "fonts are ugly", "firefox logo is ugly" or "evolution sucks" will get a WONTFIX, wasting both my time and the bug maintainer's. Nonetheless, as an experiment I have pointed out the branding inconsistency seeing as it doesn't seem to have already existed in the tracking system. Here it is: https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10549

Also, yes, I have reported bugs before, in Debian (when I used it) and GNOME.

Gowator

May 9th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Just one question.

Have any of you posting about your gripes here ever filed a bug report? Even even TRIED to file a bug report? If so, great, if not, please do.

This is similar to my view on politics. I don't think anyone is right to complain about the current (or any) administration if they didn't vote. I don't think anyone is right to complain about software (especially Open Source) if they haven't filed bug reports.

If the Canonical devs decide to change their development model to one that requires them to go onto the forums and look for bugs here, then this thread would be GREAT. But I doubt that will ever, ever happen, and it shouldn't ever happen.

Nope because they seem to call my gripes features ?

1/ Just given up on NFS since Ubuntu have done something special with it. If I have to mess with security setitngs on a default install to get something as fundamental as NFS working then its a mess
Ubuntu isn't linux to me its just a copy of OS-X or windows that makes choices for you. This is going to force me to deinstall NFS because for some reason it won't work with my other non-Ubuntu boxes?

2/ Ubuntu comes with a pre-installed root kit? fscking great idea to allow ALL:ALL in /etc/sudu this is doubly bad because it is leaving those most vulnerable because of lack of knowledge not even understanding the Unix security model. This makes it a very poor distro for learners ... as opposed to all noobies.

3/ Real linux software has problems interfacing with the fsck'd security model. Real config tools like Webmin for instance ....

4/ I expect all linux's and even BSD's to act the same for the fundamentals like NFS .. I don't want extra security UNLESS I choose... because its not the standard ... I don't want to see Gnome or KDE hacked I want to see them left the way their programmers intended!

nocturn

May 9th, 2005, 12:34 PM

Just one question.

Have any of you posting about your gripes here ever filed a bug report? Even even TRIED to file a bug report? If so, great, if not, please do.

Yes, I have.
More specificly, my grievance with the slow reactions to FireFox vulnerabilities all have bugreports.
FF 1.0.3 came out on april 15, but Ubuntu remains vulnerable to date (except backports users). Warty is a lot worse, I don't think it got any update from 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 let alone .3.

For the rest, I'm deeply and madly in love with Ubuntu.

May 9th, 2005, 01:25 PM

Yes, I have.
More specificly, my grievance with the slow reactions to FireFox vulnerabilities all have bugreports.
FF 1.0.3 came out on april 15, but Ubuntu remains vulnerable to date (except backports users). Warty is a lot worse, I don't think it got any update from 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 let alone .3.

For the rest, I'm deeply and madly in love with Ubuntu.

Packages do not get updated from one version to another. They get patched. The version numbers will not increase on a realsed package.

Knome_fan: Bug reports for Kubuntu get handled by the community, and not Canonical. It would seem that the community needs some help in fixing the problem. Why not help them?

Supernaut: Bravo for filing a bug report! You only covered about half of your gripes, though....

Knome_fan

May 9th, 2005, 01:35 PM

"Knome_fan: Bug reports for Kubuntu get handled by the community, and not Canonical. It would seem that the community needs some help in fixing the problem. Why not help them?"

That's not exactly true, now that kde is part of main. Anyway, I'm lacking the time and most of all the skills to really do something about this problem. And I really dislike these kind of answers, btw. Not everyone has the time nor the skills to fix bugs themselves, so what's the point in always bringing it up?

About the firefox problem, I think you misunderstood. As I understand it, the problem is not, that there isn't a new version for Hoary, but that several of the problems fixed in the new firefox version have not been backportet to hoary, so that people are essentially running a firefox with known vulnerabilities, that have already been fixed upstream. If that's really the case, I don't know, but if it is, that surely isn't a perfect situation.

Stormy Eyes

May 9th, 2005, 01:38 PM

CD Ripping. I've enabled DMA, I've accessed my CD-RW and DVD-ROM under SCSI emulation, and ripping CDs, whether with Sound Juicer or with another ripper kills my machine.

nocturn

May 9th, 2005, 03:15 PM

Packages do not get updated from one version to another. They get patched. The version numbers will not increase on a realsed package.

I know that, but the fixes from 1.0.3 have not all been patched in 1.0.2-hoary. One of this issues allows a remote site to write files in your home directory.

Apart from that, there is the 0.9.3 version in Warty which does not have patches from 1.0.2 or 1.0.3 for sure.

I don't mind the sticking to the old version much (although it does not have much use as the 1.0.3 is a bugfix only). Just as long as the patching does happen (in time).

Right now, my Hoary FF has been vulnerable about 20 days longer then my FF on WinXP at work...

GothicWombat

May 9th, 2005, 08:38 PM

I recently switched from windows xp and was thrilled at how easily everything set up, I didn't need to mess with network settings or anything it was all automatic and i was amazed. everything it came with set automaticly and was ready for me to learn how to tweak it.

I managed to stumble through downloading a new theme and desktop image to get rid of the ugly brown theme that it starts with but thats where my sucsess ends. After transfering my songs and videos from an old hard drive I wanted to play them, well silly me in thinking programs labeled as "Music Player" or "Movie Player" would actually play music or movies. Oh well just a simple task of downloading and installing the drivers. While the downloading was simple enough figureing out how to install it was another story, hours of reading help files, online walkthroughs, and a bunch of crap about the way stuff is coded that i didn't understand got me noplace, but even a setback as hudge as not knowing how to install anything wasn't going to stop me as I just needed to learn more.

The thing that did **** me off like no other was finding out I was not the "owner" of all the files on the computer of which I am the only user. Finding out that I can't change or even move the majority of files on my computer because the people that designed the operating system don't want me to, why thats something I'd expect from windows.

I thought Linux was supposed to be a stabe alternitive to windows for the more advanced user but have found it to be unstable (crashing 3 times in 2 days) and extreemly user unfriendly.

I realise that most of my problems are probably due to inexperience with the operating system but my major gripe and the reason I'm putting windows back on as my main operating system is that in all the help files and websites I read I came across no simple way to install anything.

Knome_fan

May 9th, 2005, 09:10 PM

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=22646
This should solve all your problems in no time.

Also take a look at:
http://ubuntuguide.org/

And make sure to also ask here on the forums if you have a question.

Have fun.

poofyhairguy

May 10th, 2005, 02:46 AM

This is similar to my view on politics. I don't think anyone is right to complain about the current (or any) administration if they didn't vote.

Voting doesn't always do anything or help in any way.

Look what state I live in. Great state, but as far as presidential elections go, my vote is wasted either way

(unless I vote third party. which I did last year. I actually met the Libertarian Presidential candidate and went to his election party.)

EDIT: to make this on topic, bug reports don't always work either. I get excited when I hear the Ubuntu devs talk about new ways to get feedback....

benplaut

May 10th, 2005, 06:06 AM

i don;t have many gripes, except: (and these aren't really ubuntu specific)

>Skype cannot be added to startup programs

>Setting up profiles for wireless is a pain in the @$$ (still haven't figured it out)

>xorg is slightly volitile... i have crashed X quite a few times, by now (but i am trying to tweak my graphics settings, so it kinda serves me right [-X )

>No menu editor by default (yes, i have Smeg)

>Metacity has no options

>No good backgrounds by default?!?

most are just small gripes, easily fixed, but the wireless profiles are a peice of @#$%^& ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Mr Hatch

May 10th, 2005, 07:21 AM

A few things that might help you suprernaut:

[...]
For the others you mentioned like email clients, torrents, word processing there are some nice alternatives just an apt-get away: Thunderbird, Azureus, Abiword...

You just need to look around. I've found this forum is a wonderful resource if you spend time with it. The tools are there to change or improve things if you know where to look. Yes it's a bit of work but then again it's all free - don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

I understand why you're posting these things but to be honest these kind of threads have a tendency to become negative and depressing. Isn't it better to just ask for help to improve things and try to help each other out so we can all have the best ubuntu for our particular tastes and needs?

In one way or other you're just telling the truth: Why trade a bit of work with your OS for freedom?
On the other hand I can fully understand why people reject Linux (in general) and flee back to their MS-boxes. I have tried several distribution over the last 3 years (to be honest nearly the whole list in distrowatch's sidebar) - but just a week ago, when I read the Ubuntu-statement on their website, I told myself to go through with all the problems the usual windows-user might have this time.
I'm improving everyday... I'm cursing everyday... but nevertheless I intend to "catch the bird" this time... thanks to synaptic, thanks to gnome with all its flaws.
I think, that many of the workarounds laid out in the guides, howtos and being pointed out in diskussions made me understand why I had so many problems with my MS-based systems. I was carelessly installing nearly any new version of any programme I came across. Now I'm fiddling with sound-juicer to make it do its job. I have an alternative, okay, but I want sound-juicer to rip my CDs using the well-thought audio-profiles I created.

What the heck did I want to say? No idea... I just like Ubuntu (can't say I like Linux, because I've just scratched the iceberg though) and I'm sure, if not Breezy, let's say in 2006 many of these initial flaws will be forgotten... at least I hope so ;)

Gowator

May 10th, 2005, 07:45 AM

Knome_fan

May 10th, 2005, 07:48 AM

This is just a fault of Ubuntu not linux. Nearly every other distro doesn't assume you are stupid and hide the admin account (root)

Hm, but maybe Ubuntu got it right, if some people are not clever enough to type sudo -s....

Gowator

May 10th, 2005, 09:18 AM

Hm, but maybe Ubuntu got it right, if some people are not clever enough to type sudo -s....

If its hidden away from them how will they ever find it?

Ubuntu seems to be focussed on the type of noobie who doesn't want to learn linux or *nix ...

mostly sudo rm -rf / will cure this !

the real prob is that root is a reality, hidden or otherwise and hiding it is just security through ignorance. Giving people the choice and explaining why files are owned by root educates, hiding only misinforms.

There is thread after thread of this because noobies don't get it ... because its hidden they think they either don't need to know or don't even realise it exists.
If the stupid gtksu thing was got rid of and people were made to run admin tasks as the root user they would see the point. Right now they have no way of differentiating.

For those who want to remain ignorant ... well perhaps this is OK but for those who come to linux expecting to learn something its pants!

not to mention that sudo passwd root is a accident waiting to be exploited!

Knome_fan

May 10th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Gowator

May 10th, 2005, 10:16 AM

"the real prob is that root is a reality, hidden or otherwise and hiding it is just security through ignorance. Giving people the choice and explaining why files are owned by root educates, hiding only misinforms."

Ehm, it's not hidden, or it's as hidden as it is in other distros. The only difference is that Ubuntu uses sudo, which is in many ways much more convenient.
.
Really so I can install and then just su - root?
I think not, it doesn't even activate the root account.
Convenient != secure and is in the eyes of the beholder...

the problem is the developers made a stupid decision and chose how stupid they want their users to be... now they won't admit they are wrong.

"If the stupid gtksu thing was got rid of and people were made to run admin tasks as the root user they would see the point. Right now they have no way of differentiating."

He? They get asked to enter their password, now that's differentiating right there.

"For those who want to remain ignorant ... well perhaps this is OK but for those who come to linux expecting to learn something its pants!"

Ah, go back to gentoo otw and tell everyone how linux isn't supposed to be an easy to use operating system, but some kind of teaching tool. And btw., can't people who want to learn be expected to read the documentation that explains what's going on? How are they supposed to learn something if they don't read?

"not to mention that sudo passwd root is a accident waiting to be exploited!"

No, it isn't, the problem is simply that you don't understand sudo, that's all.

The install default is ALL:ALL....
I have been using sudo since Solaris 2.51 and anyone putting ALL:ALL in the sudo.conf is installing thweir own root kit.

And btw., can't people who want to learn be expected to read the documentation that explains what's going on?

What fscking documentation....
Try the NFS HOWTO which is just plain wrong! Indeed which one? They both contradict each other!

Ubuntu are currently changing linux faster than they can document it !
They obviously hadn't thought out the root thing fully nor prepared enough documentation to cover it...
The wiki is a pile of ****! Full of innacuracies and contradictions because Ubuntu haven't stopped to understand the consequences of their actions.

Its a shame because they have some nice ideas they are just not documenting them and they are changing the traditional linux and *nix model of security etc.

p.s. Gentoo is as Gentoo is; it never pretends to be user friendly but at least anyone who can read can install and configure it. The same cannot be said for Ubuntu because the documentation is so crap!

Those with experience can perhaps wade through their non standard way of doing stuff but a noobie wqould be completely lost.

non standard == pile of ****!
Suse have already done the whole customising linux so its not linux crap and I hope everyday for them to go out of business and stop damaging linux.. Now Ubuntu seems set to **** over linux as well.

In any other distro with the exception of Mandrake/Suse which are crap I can set up NFS or a mail server in 3 minutes... I spent 3 days reading contradictory crap over Ubuntu just to get NFS working...
A linux distro without core services is useless for anything except a windows replacement!

Knome_fan

May 10th, 2005, 10:35 AM

"Really so I can install and then just su - root? "
You are so right, sudo -s is so terribly more obscure and difficult...

"Convenient != secure"
That's why there are two different words for it, as they are two different things.
However more convenient doesn't equate to less secure.

"and is in the eyes of the beholder"
obviously

"I have been using sudo since Solaris 2.51 and anyone putting ALL:ALL in the sudo.conf is installing thweir own root kit. "
Nope, it isn't, but it's amazing that you have been using sudo for so long now without grasping the basic concept.

"They obviously hadn't thought out the root thing fully nor prepared enough documentation to cover it... "
Oh please, there is so much documentation about the root thing that you nearly drown in it.

"Its a shame because they have some nice ideas they are just not documenting them and they are changing the traditional linux and *nix model of security etc."
They are not changing anything, the only difference is that you now have to use sudo to get root privileges, how terrible...

"The same cannot be said for Ubuntu because the documentation is so crap!"
Yeah, it's terrible, it took me about 30seconds to find out that portmap is only listening on 127.0.0.1 per default (which is a very sensible default to say the least) and that in order for NFS to work you obviously have to change that. Something you obviously couldn't figure out for the days you wasted on stupid ranting instead.

"I spent 3 days reading contradictory crap over Ubuntu just to get NFS working..."
See above, this sure is a testament to something, but ceratainly not to Ubuntu or Ubuntu's documentation being crap...

nocturn

May 10th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Really so I can install and then just su - root?
I think not, it doesn't even activate the root account.
Convenient != secure and is in the eyes of the beholder...

Yes, convience differs from security.
Ubuntu does not give sudo access to all users, just the one installing the system and you have to add others manually.
This instead of having both the root user and creating a working user ID.

There is another post about this topic that explains it very well:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=158513&postcount=22

Advantages:

* It's more convinent for the home user. They don't have to remember two passwords, and they don't have to login in a completely seperate session to perform privileged tasks (ala Windows).
* It does provide an audit trail for actions performed. Note in this specific that this would be useless in the case of an intrusion, as an attacker could easily wipe the log. However, it is useful for debugging and other purposes.
* It allows for more fine-grained control over system privilege, though Ubuntu currently doesn't do this. Something which needs to be changed. Even a Windows XP level of administrators and users would be sufficent.

Disadvantages:

* In the event of a password compromise, it does mean the attacker has a full access to the system. However, this isn't as bad as it sounds. Realistically as I said above, the most common methods of gaining a password are going to yield the root password just as easily as the user's password. As such, this is not a realistic disadvantage. I'm going to say that again, as people will ignore it:

The above point is NOT a realistic disadvantage to Ubuntu's method.
* It doesn't limit the user's ability to perform privileged tasks in any way, which has benefits beyond security. To be fair, having a root account has this same disadvantage.

The install default is ALL:ALL....
I have been using sudo since Solaris 2.51 and anyone putting ALL:ALL in the sudo.conf is installing thweir own root kit.

And giving them root access from the install is safer?

In any other distro with the exception of Mandrake/Suse which are crap I can set up NFS or a mail server in 3 minutes... I spent 3 days reading contradictory crap over Ubuntu just to get NFS working...
A linux distro without core services is useless for anything except a windows replacement!

Yes, they locked down portmapper, a very insecure service.
It took me 10 minutes to find this out on Warty and to correct it. I have NFS running just fine since. Yet I'm happy that other machines I installed that do not use NFS are not exposed to this insecure protocol.

NFSv3 is a relic, it is an insecure protocol from a different time. Unfortunately, we have to wait for NFSv4 or AFS to get a secure file sharing protocol.

Gowator

May 10th, 2005, 12:52 PM

Yes, convience differs from security.
Ubuntu does not give sudo access to all users, just the one installing the system and you have to add others manually.
This instead of having both the root user and creating a working user ID.

There is another post about this topic that explains it very well:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=158513&postcount=22

And giving them root access from the install is safer?

Yes it requires a root password! As it stands the installation user can if comprimised change the root password. I see nothing saying don't run a web browser as your installation user etc. which means they can be fooled into running a script or even run a cgi script which will change the root password when they are prompted to type theirs!
The important part is to explain the purpose and use of the root password when they install! Security comes from understanding your system not from arbitary decisions made by developers.

Yes, they locked down portmapper, a very insecure service.
It took me 10 minutes to find this out on Warty and to correct it. I have NFS running just fine since. Yet I'm happy that other machines I installed that do not use NFS are not exposed to this insecure protocol.

NFSv3 is a relic, it is an insecure protocol from a different time. Unfortunately, we have to wait for NFSv4 or AFS to get a secure file sharing protocol.

You don't need to start it! So far I have enabled it on hoary along with every other fscking service but it still doesn't work... a distro without working nfs is NOT linux! TCP/IP is also a set of relicts, are you proposing we drop that too? How about MD5 encryption?

More to the point ...
Who gave them the fscking right to choose what to lock down on my frigging box!

Seriously this is a disgraceful thing....

There is no excuse for the documentation

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NFSServer
and
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/SettingUpNFSHowTo
which contradicts
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NFSServerHowTo

How am I meant to know which one? As it happened I read the first and second ones assumed it would be normal.

The problem is the developers have decided what I can run and what I cannot ... if they concentrated on documenting it people could make their own decisions!

The whole gtksu arguament is completely one sided ... they presented the case and refuse to discuss it showing Ubuntu is run as a dictatorship!

A default ALL:ALL is worse because the user doesn't even realise....

TravisNewman

May 10th, 2005, 12:59 PM

" Who gave them the fscking right to choose what to lock down on my frigging box!

Seriously this is a disgraceful thing...."

They gave themselved the right when they decided to make the distro.

Seriously if you hate it so badly why are you still using it?

This thread is getting way out of hand. If someone wants to start a new, CONSTRUCTIVE thread about gripes/complaints, then feel free to do so. This one has turned to insulting the UBuntu developers, and the users, and lots of others.