Why Ubuntu?

[MattOnTheNet]

First let met state that I do not want start a flame, nor is this message ment as a troll. Saying that, here's the question:

Why should I use Ubuntu? What is it that Ubuntu makes it worthwhile to use it instead of RedHat, Suse or Mandrake. I believe RedtHat can be downloaded from the Internet and so can Mandrake. I admit, the GUI of Ubuntu looks very slick and neat: those brown colors are really something else that set Ubuntu apart from the rest. But all are Linux operating systems. Does Ubuntu give me something more? Is it easier (please realize that I am totaly new to Linux!!) to use? Does it differ very much from the others?

Best regards,

Matt

[az]

Visit gnu.org to understand what is free software.

Most gnu-linux distributions you named use a combination of free and non-free (proprietairy) software whereas Ubuntu uses only free software with the option of getting non-free (restricted in terms of licence) software.
Ubuntu is also based on debian which means that it tends to run better and crash less than red hat or mandrake. It also runs faster.

The colors are irrelevant since you can easily change them. You can even make your desktop as kitch as WindowsXp if you want to.

Being a small set of packages (gnome-based) it is less cluttered and streamlined. Many Ubuntu developers are gnome develpers so you get the newest stable gnome every six months, if things continue to work out...

[arctic]

i have used quite a lot distributions and (apart from slackware), ubuntu has been the distro i worked with that has the fewest bugs. fedora is very buggy imho. other very good distros are mepis, mandrake (especially for beginners) and suse (but suse tweaks lots of things... something that i do not like).

[Quake]

After using Ubuntu for a few days, I have to say it's much better than Fedora.

Ubuntu in NOT Bloated. Using Synaptic or the Apt-get Command, You can virtually install anything you want without worrying about the dependencies.

And... it seems the community is quite helpful ;)

[spirospr]

I think the fact that you ask why you should use Ubuntu , means that you shouldn't. No one have to convience you. You like it or not.

I think the choice is personal , so asking around will not make any difference.

Personaly i like the fact that it gives you a clean installation with some basic tools and after that you modify it as you like. Other distros give way to many things which most of them will never be used. So Ubuntu is the base o building the linux distro as you imagine it.

This is my personal point of view....

[Rancoras]

Moved: More appropriate to community chat

[jdodson]

reasons? well it the install process is signifigantly less than fedora(5 CDs). you dont have to wade through 50 types of programs like webbrowsers, ubuntu comes with firefox. you can install thousands of packages easily so if you want to install 50 types of browsers, you can. it is signifigantly faster than fedora. ubuntu comes with no ports open by default, making it more secure than fedora.

i didnt compare ubuntu to mandrake because ubuntu and fedora are very different that mandrake. mandrake comes with non free software, which means good things for some people(MP3 playback default, etc) and bad things to others. mandrake also IMO uses bad tactics to get people to register or join the mandrake club(the way the make money). mandrake doesnt have as many packages and they are without apt-get(which is a rockin way to install stuff).

in the long run i would choose ubuntu. then again i am far from partial :D

[jdong]

Go ahead and try all the other distributions. I did. At one time in GRUB, I had to hit PGDN 5 or so times to get to my last OS entry...

In the end when the dust settles, Ubuntu always stands out as the best, most polished distro... Fast, clean, flexible, full of selection -- and most importantly -- excellent support forum.

[mattyh]

I've found Ubuntu to be the most reliable (read: fast,bug free) operating system I've had on my computer. I'm writing this from Fedora Core 3 which I installed on my way back to Ubuntu from a temporary windows install to play half life 2 :) I can't stand fedora core 3 in comparison to ubuntu. Just my impressions I guess.

[MattOnTheNet]

Thank you all for your answers.

@Azz: Of course I realize that the desktop colours can be changed. The fact that I am new at Linux does not mean that I am a totally greenhorn: I started my computer career with the PDP-8 and 11 series from Digital Equipment and have worked with different types of hardware and operating systems. The only thing I tried (and obviously failed) to state was that the *first* impression, and that just what it was: a first impression, was favourable. One could see that a lot of effort was being made to Ubuntu. My experience tells me that if a company pays attention to litlle details, it also tends to pay attention to other more important issues. But then again, I am also old enough to realize that a beautiful wrapped pakkage does not always mean that the contents is as pretty. :-)

@Spirospr. I found your reaction "I think the fact that you ask why you should use Ubuntu , means that you shouldn't.." a little bit puzzling. Why, the fact that I don't know, is the main reason why I asked it. I was counting on the gracious support of this group, in which I was not dissapointed. Remember that in my starting message I stated "please realize that I am totaly new to Linux!!" Your opening recommendation does not help very much in explaining why it would be better to use Ubuntu in terms of stability, easy to use, no hassle with drivers and all the other reasons everybody mentioned. My intention is to install a Linux version and start to learn about Linux. Naturaly I wanted to install the most favourable package hence my question.

@All others. Thank you very much for taking time to answer a newbie's question.

Matt

[spirospr]

Thank you all for your answers.

@Azz: Of course I realize that the desktop colours can be changed. The fact that I am new at Linux does not mean that I am a totally greenhorn: I started my computer career with the PDP-8 and 11 series from Digital Equipment and have worked with different types of hardware and operating systems. The only thing I tried (and obviously failed) to state was that the *first* impression, and that just what it was: a first impression, was favourable. One could see that a lot of effort was being made to Ubuntu. My experience tells me that if a company pays attention to litlle details, it also tends to pay attention to other more important issues. But then again, I am also old enough to realize that a beautiful wrapped pakkage does not always mean that the contents is as pretty. :-)

@Spirospr. I found your reaction "I think the fact that you ask why you should use Ubuntu , means that you shouldn't.." a little bit puzzling. Why, the fact that I don't know, is the main reason why I asked it. I was counting on the gracious support of this group, in which I was not dissapointed. Remember that in my starting message I stated "please realize that I am totaly new to Linux!!" Your opening recommendation does not help very much in explaining why it would be better to use Ubuntu in terms of stability, easy to use, no hassle with drivers and all the other reasons everybody mentioned. My intention is to install a Linux version and start to learn about Linux. Naturaly I wanted to install the most favourable package hence my question.

@All others. Thank you very much for taking time to answer a newbie's question.

Matt

It is not personal. As you already said you gave the impression that you tested Ubuntu, did not like it and then ask why you should use it. That's the impression i got. Furthermore the rest of my answer is adequate to understand that i wanted to encourage you. So please don't point me , i think you misunderstood me.

If you select to use Ubuntu i welcome you and i will offer my help if needed. :confused:

[MattOnTheNet]

@SpiroSpr

Guess we both misread the messages we sent each other, a common phenomena in the email world of Internet. The subject message of my email was probably suggestive and indeed, could be misunderstand easily. Thank you for your reply: that cleared things up!

The question was initiated by my wondering why Ubuntu comes on just one CD and all others like SuSe, Red Hat, Fedora (=Red Hat), Mandrake and lots of others have a 3, 4, 5 and even 6 CD installations. Now if this was due to fact that Ubuntu was missing about a zillion applications, I could understand it. But is doesn’t, as far as the eye (of a newbie!) can see. There’s a complete suite of office applications, games, multi-media programs and system tools that come with Ubuntu. Yesterday I installed Red Hat Linux, which by the way took almost 2,5 hours instead of the Ubuntu installation that took about 1,5 hour, but found no breathtaking differences between the two systems, “added-application wise. “

I also still do not fully understand what the differences are between the various distro’s. In Windows language: I do understand the differences between Windows ME and Windows NT. They are completely different operating systems with one common denominator: they both can run, for example, Word. I fail to see the differences between, again for example, Ubuntu and Mandrake. Is the IO system different? The filing system? Maybe the syntax? Are there sub streams in the Linux world that all share a common ground but have subtle differences like MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS and so on? I’ve searched Internet but cannot find any satisfying answer. Of course, every company claims that his Linux is the best and there are about 50 and more reasons why one should use their product.

Now these are the questions that keep me busy at the moment. Ubuntu gave a very good first impressing based on a newbie’s point of view: slick interface, lot’s of programs. I realize that those are the least important issues of any operating system. What I don’t know is how to interpret the performance of Ubuntu compared to other Linux systems or if Ubuntu deviates from the Linux world.

Again, my apologies for misinterpreting your message and thanks for offering me your help!

Kind regards,

Matthieu

the Netherlands

[poofyhairguy]

Hello Matt, you ask good questions. I'll try to answer a few.



The question was initiated by my wondering why Ubuntu comes on just one CD and all others like SuSe, Red Hat, Fedora (=Red Hat), Mandrake and lots of others have a 3, 4, 5 and even 6 CD installations. Now if this was due to fact that Ubuntu was missing about a zillion applications, I could understand it. But is doesn’t, as far as the eye (of a newbie!) can see. There’s a complete suite of office applications, games, multi-media programs and system tools that come with Ubuntu. Yesterday I installed Red Hat Linux, which by the way took almost 2,5 hours instead of the Ubuntu installation that took about 1,5 hour, but found no breathtaking differences between the two systems, “added-application wise. “

Well, thats because ubuntu does lack a lot of programs on the install. Maybe you don't notice on a desktop PC, but you would if you ran a linux server. Well maybe you would notice, as things like mplayer (program to play video files) aren't installed with the OS like with pay for distros (mandrake suse).

The point is that it can be light, because most of these packages (or any linux programs really) can be added as you want off the internet through synaptic (there are over 14000 avalible for ubuntu).



I also still do not fully understand what the differences are between the various distro’s. In Windows language: I do understand the differences between Windows ME and Windows NT. They are completely different operating systems with one common denominator: they both can run, for example, Word. I fail to see the differences between, again for example, Ubuntu and Mandrake. Is the IO system different? The filing system? Maybe the syntax? Are there sub streams in the Linux world that all share a common ground but have subtle differences like MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DR-DOS and so on? I’ve searched Internet but cannot find any satisfying answer. Of course, every company claims that his Linux is the best and there are about 50 and more reasons why one should use their product.

All distros use the same kernel from Linus (the kernel developer) and basically the same software. Each distro is different in:

1. what software it includes from the thousands of availible linux programs
2. what device drivers it includes (ubuntu is really good for me in this category)
3. what non open source programs it has (for example: SUSE has a config software tool named YAST that is not open source, so you only get it with SUSE)
4. logo, login screen, desktop layout
5. community (big deal. can be a difference maker. for example, I would like mandrake more, if most of its community wasn't french-a language I can't read!)
6. marketing
7. companies behind it
8. philosophy- is it all free? (like ubuntu). is there a free version and a pay for one? (like fedora). is it not free at all? (xandros) is it free with pay support and pay for access to software packages? (mandrake)
9. (sometimes) what window manager it uses (suse-KDE, ubuntu-GNOME)
10. what package managment system it uses (debain, ubuntu- debs, fedora, suse-rps, slackware- slacks?)



Now these are the questions that keep me busy at the moment. Ubuntu gave a very good first impressing based on a newbie’s point of view: slick interface, lot’s of programs. I realize that those are the least important issues of any operating system. What I don’t know is how to interpret the performance of Ubuntu compared to other Linux systems or if Ubuntu deviates from the Linux world.

style points are very important, they make distros more unique.

ubuntu is a real linux, (i don't know is there is deviates of linux) that from my experiance with all the popular distros is by far faster than most.

Its based on debian, which is known for its performance and stability. its has many availible packages (more than you'll ever find for suse, fedora), a good community, and a neat philosophy. But its not for everyone.

For example, my dad (a geek like myself) would hate it. Why? Because he would make fun of the philosophy, and bitch that its didn't let him play mp3s, dvds, avi's out of the box like SUSE does. But I would never talk him into using ubuntu, and I wouldn't care if he (or you) used it. The many flavors of linux allow users to get the package best for them- I love ubuntu's (I call it debian done right).

whatever you end up doing, be sure to enjoy. I have so much fun working in linux, if only because my computer seems more logical and less irrational and moody (anyone that ever used windows ME knows what I'm talking about).

[spirospr]

I think that Ubuntu is the best distro you can start from. I've tried to install other distros before with no success. They are very comfusing for a newbie as me. With Ubuntu everything is more clear. The support forum is great and everyone is willing to help. Testing is the best you can do.

Other distros are trying to give you as more as possible so that you select them , but the only thing they do is to frustrate most of the new users who don't know how to start because there are a milion tools to do the same thing.

[tlewis]

I am very impressed with the way Ubuntu functions on older hardware. I was able to install it on a 466 Mhz Celeron based system with only 64 mb of ram. It ran slow but when I bumped the system to 128 mb it ran well. Mandrake 10 does not run this well on older hardware. Neither does Mepis. I like Mepis and have installed it on an 866 Mhz box with 128 mb. It has lots of apps included but does not run as fast as Ubuntu. This is an excellent distribution. I am no expert with FC3 and tends to stay with Debbian based distros but recent reviews give the edge to Ubuntu (see the one in OSNews).

[jakeslife]

One thing that gets me all hot and bothered about Ubuntu is the forums. It's obviously a great place to get help from others just like you when you need something, and most of the time within minutes from posting (unless you throw a lot of random stupid characters in your title or start with "HELP ME PLEEEEEEEEEZ").

Another reason for me is it's backing by a prominant figure who holds these values, not just the dollars generated by them.

I've tried Mandrake, Suse, Red Hat, Fedora, Slackware, Knopix, and Slax, and Ubuntu is the best by far that I've found. The package management just works, the hardware detection for me just works, and Gnome 2.8 is fantastic!

I know a lot of new people to linux (me sometimes) hates the command line, and would rather wade through a GUI to get things done. That's fine too. You can create scripts to do thing. Instead of having to open the terminal and type something (for instance apt-get update), just have a script for it. You not only learn something about linux when you do it the first time and can share that knowledge with others, you learn more about linux to benefit you!

I think one of the most common reasons people don't deviate from Windows is their familiarity of it. That's what had me for a long time. Sometimes it even still does. But when I got my first computer I knew nothing about Windows 3.1, I had to learn.

Okay, I admit that I haven;t installed Ubuntu as my primary OS yet, but after I'm done moving into my new condo in the next couple of weeks it's there! :-P