PDA

View Full Version : what sets ubuntu apart from others?



silent1643
June 1st, 2007, 01:02 PM
If all linux distros are pretty much the same.... what sets ubuntu apart?

"When you look at what UNIX-like operating systems really are, each is a set of editorial choices about which free software userland to assemble around which kernel. So you discover that everyone in Fedora, and everyone in FreeBSD, and everyone in OpenSolaris are all using the same stuff. They're all using GNOME or KDE, they're all using Sendmail, and they're all using Mozilla."
-linux journal interview with sun's chief open source guru


i just wanted first hand opinions on why you think ubuntu is better than others :D

shijirou
June 1st, 2007, 01:05 PM
Like everything else, its a matter of taste. Its like cars you see, you may drive a Porche Boxster but I would prefer a Ford Mustang.

Dragonbite
June 1st, 2007, 02:32 PM
The biggest difference between *nix's is the packaging. It's more marketing than anything else.

Ubuntu is a well-rounded package that focuses on the general consumer. It is considered one of the best for overall hardware recognition, ease of installation.
Tradeoff: Reduces the number of applications and "dumbs-down" for the general consumer.

.
RedHat / CentOS is a conservitive package focused on stablitiy-hunting enterprises (for desktops and servers). It also focuses on the long term and backward-compatibility.
Tradeoff: Tt runs without the latest-and-greatest of applications (except core apps an Enterprise might want, like Apache or PHP)

.
openSuSE and Fedora are less conservative packages seeking more cutting-edge experimentation opportunities (like Mono or SELinux/App Armor)
Tradeoff: May be slightly less stable and requires more up-to-date hardware for all of the features (not to the degree of Vista, but still). Also, they are under the influence of their corporate parent and exists partially as long as the corporate entity allows it, but the corporation has different needs than the community.

.
openSolaris is a package geared towards developers and people interested in the Solaris kernel (instead of Linux). It's an interesting thought, if I had a computer powerful enough I think I would give it a try.
Tradeoff: Fewer contributors and users since it is one of the newer ones (Solaris has been around, but openSolaris is newer), plus they are under the whim of their corporate parent.

.
FreeBSD is a package for people who want "pure" Unix or as my co-worker has pointed out, FreeBSD people like it to just work and is not intersted in advocacy as much as Linux people.
Tradeoff : Fewer contributors when compared to Linux, less advocacy to get the general public to know about them.

.
Mac (OS X) is geared towards people that want a tight, integrated and "finished" package. Something that includes all of the good aspects of Windows but with a *nix underpinning.
Tradeoff : Under the perview of a corporation with the #1 focus being making money for the company, it isn't totally open, expensive hardware.
.

lazyart
June 1st, 2007, 02:42 PM
Don't know if Ubuntu is necessarily better, but my brief history in Linux is littered with questions and peppered with responses such as "RTFM" or "Go back to Windows". So I'd say it's hands-down the community. I'm sure there is a pocket of the Linux crowd that despises Ubuntu, much like the folks who loved U2 in the early 80's but resented "The Joshua Tree" and the "mainstreaming" of the group.

Obviously Linux is not mainstream but support is swelling.

starcraft.man
June 1st, 2007, 02:47 PM
Uh, well I guess to me its just a few things:

1) Best support I've seen out there (and I've looked some), between all the documentation (ubuntuguide, psychocats, linuxcommand.org, etc...) and these forums, it is very user friendly and easy to get started in and learn a lot as fast as you like.

2) Apt/deb is a great package system compared to the select others I've seen, it just works so beautifully :).

3) Fits perfectly on one (whereas there are other distros requiring DVDs or more than 1) live CD and works very well out of the box if limited by codecs and other proprietary things not installed by default, but those are easy to install.

I think those three are the main reasons its so great. Even after using it for a while and learning a lot, I still think its a great day to day platform :).

ago
June 1st, 2007, 03:13 PM
It's a combination of factors. The sum makes the difference, others might have gotten a few points right, but none got all of them correct.


Great community, discourage arrogant members that might intimidate new users, encourage friendly attitude
Best package manager around (of any OS, sorry for portage fans) in terms of ease of use, power and package coverage

Easy to cover niche markets via metapackages, so that the main distro can become specialized and generate offsprings

Use a very powerful and flexible distro (debian) but preconfigure it so that it just works -> result: nerds are happy because have a powerful and flexible distro, n00bs are happy because they have a system working out of the box

Streamlined desktop, with no-nonsense menu item/application -> choose only the best packages most people would need (1 per each app class) and make it very easy to install the rest (thanks again to the package manager)
1 CD
Free in all senses -> Devs are not concerned about others freeriding their work and are more willing to help.

Free as in beer
Free as in freedom: defend and promote FOSS over closed software.
Keep the company behind it at some distance. Leave the distro as a fairly independent community effort. Make the decision process quite open and transparent (blueprints).

Be friendly with upstream sources and provide good cooperation tools (launchpad/rosetta/malone/bzr).
Fixed release schedule 6M apart + long term releases. Bleeding edge lovers have to wait at most 6M to get the latest software (and can use backports if they are really impatient), stability lovers have LTS. Fixed release schedule is IMO superior to milestone "schedule" when it comes to distributions.

silent1643
June 1st, 2007, 03:17 PM
The biggest difference between *nix's is the packaging. It's more marketing than anything else.

Ubuntu is a well-rounded package that focuses on the general consumer. It is considered one of the best for overall hardware recognition, ease of installation.
Tradeoff: Reduces the number of applications and "dumbs-down" for the general consumer.

.
RedHat / CentOS is a conservitive package focused on stablitiy-hunting enterprises (for desktops and servers). It also focuses on the long term and backward-compatibility.
Tradeoff: Tt runs without the latest-and-greatest of applications (except core apps an Enterprise might want, like Apache or PHP)

.
openSuSE and Fedora are less conservative packages seeking more cutting-edge experimentation opportunities (like Mono or SELinux/App Armor)
Tradeoff: May be slightly less stable and requires more up-to-date hardware for all of the features (not to the degree of Vista, but still). Also, they are under the influence of their corporate parent and exists partially as long as the corporate entity allows it, but the corporation has different needs than the community.

.
openSolaris is a package geared towards developers and people interested in the Solaris kernel (instead of Linux). It's an interesting thought, if I had a computer powerful enough I think I would give it a try.
Tradeoff: Fewer contributors and users since it is one of the newer ones (Solaris has been around, but openSolaris is newer), plus they are under the whim of their corporate parent.

.
FreeBSD is a package for people who want "pure" Unix or as my co-worker has pointed out, FreeBSD people like it to just work and is not intersted in advocacy as much as Linux people.
Tradeoff : Fewer contributors when compared to Linux, less advocacy to get the general public to know about them.

.
Mac (OS X) is geared towards people that want a tight, integrated and "finished" package. Something that includes all of the good aspects of Windows but with a *nix underpinning.
Tradeoff : Under the perview of a corporation with the #1 focus being making money for the company, it isn't totally open, expensive hardware.
.



well said, puts it all in a better perspective for me. Thanks for your input:popcorn:

runningwithscissors
June 1st, 2007, 03:24 PM
Marketing.