PDA

View Full Version : Why is Ubuntu better than your previous distro?



denisesballs
October 21st, 2005, 08:17 PM
I looked, but couldn't find a thread like this. If there already is, sorry!

I know a lot of people have swicthed to Ubuntu from other Linux distros. What are your reasons? I'll start with mine:

I came from Fedora. I've used Redhat/Fedora since Redhat 8. I always felt it didn't quite fit. First of all, I hated how BLOATED it always was. It comes with so much crap you don't need, and then you still wind up in dependency hell! I like how Ubuntu is a small distro on one disk, and the software repositories are HUGE. Once apt/yum started working for Fedora, it was a good solution. However adding 5-10 third-party repositories that were either slow, or down half the time would drive me nuts. I also could never seem to build something from source. Once I got the ./configure all nice and good, the make would die. How does that make sense? Even building from source, not that I have to very much anymore, is so much smoother on Ubuntu.

I also like how packages are built for common things like Nvidia drivers, so you don't have to watch Nvidia's site, or edit the xorg.conf file.

Nomatter what I hear, Ubuntu is at least 1/3 as fast as Fedora. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe because of the bloat, but it's true.

I think it's interesting how people from all over the distro map - from noobies to advanced people - are switching to Ubuntu. Is it just because things "just work"? Why is Ubuntu better than your previous distro?

Kyral
October 21st, 2005, 08:31 PM
I used to use Gentoo. Two words "Compile Time". 'Nuff said

But before that I used Slackware. Why did I switch from Slack to Gentoo anyway....

aysiu
October 21st, 2005, 08:33 PM
I started on Mepis, and you'll often see me plugging Mepis to first-time Linux users here who complain about how un-user-friendly they think Ubuntu is. The truth is that a lot of newly ex-Windows users (including myself) have certain expectations about how something should work and how things should be configured (everything should be GUI). A lot of new Linux users don't want to bother installing non-free codecs or editing config files. Mepis also is both a live and installer CD (something Ubuntu's working on, I hear) and has a graphical installer (something people constantly complain about regarding Ubuntu). It's also cost-free.

Why did I switch? Well, Mepis is a good first distro, but Ubuntu's a much better second distro. After a while, I realized a few things about Mepis:

1. It's bloated and slow. KDE in general is slow, but I've seen KDE fast on some distros (Kubuntu and PCLinuxOS, for example).
2. The community isn't very knowledgeable or responsive (in general).
3. They have an ugly bootsplash that is not easy to change.

Ubuntu appealed to me for several reasons at that point:

1. Once I got used to Linux, I didn't mind editing configuration files. In fact, now I prefer it that way.
2. It's totally free, and I believe in that. If I want non-free codecs, there are plenty of good how-tos on how to install those.
3. It's very easy to customize, and I don't have an ugly bootsplash.
4. The release cycle is every six months.
5. The community is responsive and knowledgeable.

canadianwriterman
October 21st, 2005, 08:39 PM
I started with Linspire 5.0: Had to pay for it, had to pay for repository access, too limited in its tinkerability

Next went to Xandros 3.0: A good distro, but again paid access to the repository (for most items)

Then I tried OpenSUSE 10.0: It was on FIVE disks, on install it couldn't detect my network connection, I couldn't figure out how to configure it and the forum couldn't help

Finally, I found Ubuntu: I immediately "connected" with its philosphy and its look and feel. I installed and opened it one morning before work. On the way to work, it suddenly struck me that I felt calm and relaxed after using Ubuntu, even though I didn't have everything the way I wanted it. The key has been you folks on the forum who have walked me through almost everything I wanted to do and needed to fix.

I doubt that I'll use any other distro. I'm home.

Orunitia
October 21st, 2005, 08:41 PM
It just works. Simple as that.

Slackware/Debian makes you configure too much yourself (not knocking those distros, they are both wonderful.) Distros like Suse/Redhat/Fedora/Mandrake... I just cannot stand RPM's. I've used different versions of all the distros listed above.

nenotnom
October 21st, 2005, 08:51 PM
I went from Windows XP to Slackware. I tried a number of distros, but only slackware would run on my computer without problems, I became tired of having to configure absolutely everything by hand however. Slackware wasn't meant for me.
So one time I stumbled upon Ubuntu and installed it, and it was the only distro except Slack that actually worked well on my computer, and then I got even more pulled in by the community thing. You know, the whole thing about humanity, and the fact that the creator of Ubuntu actually seems to get it.

Lovechild
October 21st, 2005, 08:51 PM
It's not - that's why I switched back.

The only real advantage I see with Ubuntu is that unlike Fedora they make it easy to use questionable software like Mono and various codecs. Oh and dpkg can handled installing from a path with a space in it, rpm seems to fall over by default if you do that.

tseliot
October 21st, 2005, 09:03 PM
Linspire 5.0: the first time I used it (I was a windows user) I followed a guide to install Synaptic (instead of CNR, in which you have to pay). I installed some apps which broke the OS. Then I read about a certain Ubuntu...

OpenSuse 10: perhaps my mind is influenced too much by Ubuntu but I find the GUI so user friendly that it's highly unfriendly for me (where's my command line??? :p ). No, really it also gave problems when I installed on my desktop computer. It's not for me.

PCLinuxOS Preview 9.1: it has almost every package you might desire to have, it's all point and click (nvidia drivers, etc.) but it's buggy. Sometimes it forgets who's in charge here and pretends not to accept my commands (open the file manager, damn! :mad: :p )

Fedora Core 4: It looks good, and I love the command line (as usual) then I try to update it: "yum update" or just "yum install some_app". The problem is that it takes too much time. Perhaps it's just that I'm used to APT and Synaptic in Ubuntu.

Ubuntu: everything I ever wanted. Fast, stable (I refer to GNOME). And I enjoy writing guides for it when I have some free time. I love it and I haven't found anything better.

P.S. I mean no offense to anyone who love some of the distros I've dealt with. This is my experience and it doesn't mean anything. If one of this distros works fine for you then I'm happy for you. :)

GeneralZod
October 21st, 2005, 09:16 PM
I came directly from Gentoo, where it took me approximately two weeks to get my install to the same degree of useability as an out-of-the-box install of Kubuntu - and no, the time wasn't all spent compiling :)

I learnt how to follow instructions from the handbook; no more. It is a unique and oddly beautiful distro, though - portage in particular is an absolute joy, especially if you like installing bleeding-edge apps, like me :)

Generally, I like things being done for me - for instance, mounting DVDs as soon as I put them in the drive, which I know some of the members of this board actively hate! - so in the end, Gentoo was not for me. I also like the forums and community here more, although the Gentoo community is still great and very knowledgeable.

bored2k
October 21st, 2005, 09:36 PM
The distro I was using right before Ubuntu 4.10 was Xandros 3. Ridiculously bad repositories (adding Debian sid repositories was pretty much playing russian roulette), installing other DMs would just produce mayhem and delete all the xandros-* system files, and overall It made me more bubbly minute after minute.

[Rui]
October 21st, 2005, 09:48 PM
I've started with Slackware, the *argh*the*floppy*broke*and*my*net*is*down oldies :) Then I moved on to Red Hat by the time it was 4.2, mostly as a user at those days. Only later, mainly by the time Red Hat released 5.1, I became more involved, and I finally took my final plunge into freedom by Red Hat 6.2.
I've been using mostly Red Hat ever since, but Ubunto 5.10 finally made my day. I tried 5.04, but it still had most of the technical problems I felt with RH.

Well, I'm still keeping with RHEL for the server at my workplace, along with OpenBSD, but that's mainly because RH's model is friendlier for the bosses, and OpenBSD is a nice plus for security and heterogeneous networks.

linuxnomad
October 21st, 2005, 09:51 PM
I first used Suse 9.0 I quickly found out not all RPMs work on Suse. Had a lot of trouble just finding programs that weren't included on the CDs in the proper RPM format for Suse and since I was new I didn't know how ,back then, to redirect dependencies to get the RPMs working.
Went from Suse 9.0 straight to Gentoo. I loved Gentoo except I kept tweaking it and having to recompile once a week. I wasn't smart enough to backup my system. You learn a lot with Gentoo.
Went back to Suse for 9.1 liked it but for me at least was buggy and I don't really like KDE.
Tried Red Hat 9.0 it was nasty:-(
Found Mepis and it was ok but still it used KDE and some how I kept crashing it.
I tried Warty and for some reason didn't like, back to Mepis.
I end up building a new computer and found Suse 9.3 couldn't detect half my hardware neither could Gentoo, Mepis, or Mandrake. Ubuntu was the only one I could get to load and work with no hassles. That was 6 months ago and I don't think I will be switching to any other distro. Also Ubuntu is the only distro I haven't managed to brake.
I'm still looking for a distro to work on my wife's computer. She likes my computer and linux, but she has a Gateway and well I have yet to find a distro that works with her motherboard.

Matthew

poofyhairguy
October 21st, 2005, 10:16 PM
The repo was big enough I never had to make install programs like in Fedora. I hate compiling apps from source code!

xequence
October 21st, 2005, 10:40 PM
I had only tried DSL and slax before ubuntu. DSL wasnt even considered, not much usablity. Slax only got to 640*480 resolution.

MakubeX
October 22nd, 2005, 01:22 AM
@denisesballs - Actually, I was an old time Fedora/RedHat advocate before. I had already posted (at my blog) my experience in the
shift from FC3 to Ubuntu 5.10 (http://smithforgerx.blogspot.com/2005/10/ubuntu-510.html), and yes, for me, "everything just works!".

SilentCacophony
October 22nd, 2005, 02:02 AM
I had been using debian for about a week before trying ubuntu. I had researched on and off about making the switch to linux for about a month before that, rather than diving in blind. I chose debian because of the large community and longevity that it had, and it's GNU/Linux ideology. I soon found that I rather liked the apt system.

Still, I found myself having to do a lot of googling to figure out how things worked in it, and somewhere in doing that, I found ubuntu. After looking through the site and wiki, then checking out the forums, I thought 'nice, user-friendly debian!' I was particularly impressed with the forum community.

Between the forums and the wiki, I had little trouble setting up ubuntu to triple-boot with Win98 and debian (sid). I've never had to post a question yet, having found the answer to any questions I've had already here in the forums.

Anyway, I find that I still like debian for tinkering with things, along with a 'lighter' ubuntu built from a server install, but I use a tweaked, full breezy install most of the time.

qalimas
October 22nd, 2005, 04:13 AM
I won't go into my full history of distro's, I've been through too many, none more than a couple of months :P

But I came from Fedora Core 3, I liked it at first, but then it just became hell. the reps on YUM never worked right, something was always down, something always conflicted, RPMs were a pain to get installed. It came with too much bloat as well, it wasn't as fast as I had wanted, and overall it's just not a pleasent thing to use. Now, I didn't know htat until I tried Warty :D I've been with Ubuntu about a year, the longest I've ever been with a distro, cheers to many more years!

Ubuntu is my one and only distro of choice, nothing matches to it, if something ever gets here and then higher, then I'll say bye to Ubuntu, but it hasn't happened, and I doubt it will :D

To sum it up:
APT > YUM
.deb > .rpm
Ubuntu faster than Fedora
Ubuntu less bloated than Fedora

towsonu2003
October 22nd, 2005, 05:55 AM
my problem with all other distros was my winmodem. somehow, this stupid winmodem does not work anywhere except ubuntu (ubumodem) and I use dial up.

also, I like the logo :) and apt-get

Nomearod
October 24th, 2005, 02:57 PM
1º) Red Hat 9. It istalled well but I didn't knew how to install programs, so I tryed other distro...

2º) Mandrake. My moden wasn't detected so I had to delete it and switched back to Windos XP

3º) Fedora Core 3. Things were nice, but I didn't like yum...

3º) After a long time with Windows, I tryed Linux again. This time I tryed Caixa Mágica. It's a Portuguese distro, and It worked really well. My connection was detected and it has Synaptic, so, i could install programs. After this, I wanted do try other distros.

4º) Slackware. Didn't knew why, but after install it, the KDE didn't started and I didn't knew what to do, so I format and tryed Debian.

5º) Debian. I think that was a problem with the ISO, and it was corrupt, so the install didn't worked very well...

6º) Tryed some Live-Cds like Linspire or Mepis.

7º) Now, I use Ubuntu Brezy ( and tryed Hoary but for a shot time ), and Suse 10.0 and I'm fine with then.

Afeter all this distos, I found in Ubuntu, a excelent distro with a good recognise of the hardware, and I like Gnome. My internet connection was found and everything works by the way it shouls, and Synaptic is probably the best program ^_^

Master Shake
October 24th, 2005, 03:41 PM
1) Mandrake did not detect my high-speed internet
2) APT-GET r0xx0rz!

PatrickMay16
October 24th, 2005, 03:47 PM
The distribution of Linux I had tried before Ubuntu was Mandrake 10.1. I couldn't get anything working right and I had terrible video problems. I didn't get midi working at all, and midi is very important to me.
In Ubuntu, I got midi working almost straight away, thanks to RastaMahata's excellent HowTo, "Easy midi in hoary".
When I was duel booting Windows/Mandrake, I barely used linux at all. Now I'm duel booting Ubuntu and Windows and now I barely use windows at all... heh heh heh.

nsa_767
October 24th, 2005, 03:48 PM
OK, I'm still not technically a 100%-pure Linux user, since I still dual-boot with XP on the one drive... But here goes my tale:


My first distro was Corel Linux (first version)... many years back, thought it was OK, but couldn't really do anything with it since I had no Internet connection back then. :-(
Dropped Corel, and didn't Linux for a few years thereafter... Then got hold of SuSE 7.3... I loved it, but it was very slow and bloated. Also, I found it near impossible to do anything useful with it on dial-up.
Again, I dropped Linux for a year or two... Then I started studying at university and started using some open-source mathematical software. The programs were great, but ran poorly on Windows... So, I got hold of Quantian, I live-CD with the required software... But, I grew tired of it....
Now, since August, I've finally got a better-than-dial-up connection.... So, I dived back into the Linux world, with Ubuntu...


Well, to wrap it up... Ubuntu is so good, I honestly think I might just ditch XP.

OH, before I forget... I'm running Ubuntu on the same machine I used SuSE 7.3 with, and Ubuntu (even though it is more up-to-date) runs faster now than SuSE ever did.

Muhammad
October 24th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Ubuntu Hoary is my first linux distro, I heard that it was free of charge and since WinXP was giving me alot of troubles, I thought "Why not...?"

Now I can't imagine myself going back to WinXP.

ygarl
October 24th, 2005, 05:14 PM
I came from Fedora Core 3 (SLOW. BLOATED. DEPENDENCY HELL. NOTHING COMPILES FROM CODE BECAUSE OF DEPENCDENCY HELL), then to Mandrake/Mandriva (Slow. Less Bloated. Non-free as in speech to get things to work properly. LOUSY community to get help.)

Now I am on Ubuntu. I have slight issues with sound in that Ardour, etc don't really work well - but that didn't work properly in Mandriva or Fedora either! (only works REALLY well on Dyne:bolic!). Ubuntu's repositories aren't quite as vast as Mandriva's but it doesn't have an elitist "What? Just pay for your subscription like everyone else" mentality. It comes on a single CD. It have a fanTASTic review cycle (Mandriva? Try once a year. Don't even go there with Fedora...)
I like Ubuntu because it is REALLY free (like beer and speech), has a decent repository, has very realistic dependencies and Apt-get, and a wonderful community.
I haven't had to visit linuxquestions.org for 6 months. That pretty much says it all...

queenorych
October 24th, 2005, 05:28 PM
I ran debian amd64 unstable port. Was sick and tired of being a 2nd class citizen since amd64 unstable was not one of the 11 arch supported by debian. Some pacakge maintaners refused to apply simple patches, different repositories. Terrible.

That and it's old. Ok debian stable 3 years fine. Unstable is still running gnome 2.10. Huh? They say they expect it to be in unstable 4 mo. after it came out. Umm, gnome has a 6 mo. release cycle. It takes gnome 6 mo to patch and update their desktop. then it takes 4 mo to put it in deb files come on. Debian was great, but to idealistic. Just bundle the packages, send patches up stream, don't rewrites the programs!

Yea debian pure64 sounds great in theory, but it's nice when ubuntu amd64 installs with openoffice ready to go. Even if under the hood its 32 bit, i'd rather not deal with a chroot.

ThirdWorld
October 24th, 2005, 05:35 PM
I learned to use linux with redhat a couple of years ago when i was studing at school for my linux + exam. I honestly didnt like it that much, it had some issues with internet conectivity in the lab. For the last 2 years I have had wet dreams of ditching windows LOL. Few weeks ago I was looking for a Mac mini or emac or any other alternative to the crapy windows and i stumbled with Ubuntu linux. At fisrt I thought it was another buggy distro, but after more research I figure out that Ubuntu was what i was looking for, not only to use at home, but also to upgrade the computers at my office. My next step will be to install ubuntu in a laptop that im planning to purchase soon.

23meg
October 24th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Before Ubuntu I was using Fedora Core 3. Reasons Ubuntu is light years ahead for me, in near order of importance:

- apt
- the community
- 2x to 3x faster boot time
- better handling of multiple audio devices
- better default Gnome integration
- less bloat

denisesballs
October 24th, 2005, 05:40 PM
Before Ubuntu I was using Fedora Core 3. Reasons Ubuntu is light years ahead for me, in near order of importance:

- apt

People gotta stop saying this. APT works fine with rpm, and Fedora. Not as well as debian/ubuntu, but it works.

23meg
October 24th, 2005, 05:47 PM
If you mean apt for rpm I've had to use it to install the Planet CCRMA audio packages on top of Fedora and in my experience it was a nightmare that didn't make rpm hell any more tolerable. Apt-cache didn't work (segfault), mixing repositories was next to impossible and lots of dependency errors occured, perhaps due to the fact that the Fedora repos weren't as comprehensive as the Debian/Ubuntu ones.

brentoboy
October 24th, 2005, 06:16 PM
Mandrake - charges you for the CD and then charges you a subscription just to continually have access to thier "club" I've purchased it twice now, and I cant download stuff from them becuase I've expired. That is about stupid.

Gentoo - excelent, still use it - but not on my desktop, all the optimizations avaialble let you cut out stuff you dont want, which is great for servers and PCs where the feature set is predictable, but the desktop is more of a "what looks fun today" and recompiling for 3d support doesnt offer instant gratification.

Linux from scratch (LFS) is hard to keep up to date (no auto update feature) and is very informative, and I still have a partition for it, but I feel like is was more educational than functional.

Mepis - excelent actually, only left becuase was having trouble getting my laptop's max resolution to work properly. Not quite as much community responsivness (what do you expect from a one man hobbie - it far exceeds expectations)

Slackware - I'd rather compile from source than use their packaging system. - wait, they have a packaging system :) - sorry no slam intended here, just poking fun. Vector Linux - same story, but actually quite nice because the default set of apps is pretty good.

Debian - I need amd64 support, and debian treats amd64 like a step-child (mentioned by someone else I think) also, their definition of "stable = no reported bugs for over a decade" :) makes for seriously out of date programs. "etch" installer didnt detect my network card (which is odd because sarge did)

Damn Small Linux - doesnt support my CD drive (the sata chipset is somewhat new) and not amd64.

opensuse - already covered this here
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=81120

In summary,
Ubuntu rocks for these reasons (in no particular order):
Easy install
Wide range of hardware support
Excelent package managment system.
Up to date packages, regular version updates.
Large repositories (once you enable universe)
Incredibly responsive and helpful and friendly forums.
oh, and its free.

denisesballs
October 24th, 2005, 06:17 PM
If you mean apt for rpm I've had to use it to install the Planet CCRMA audio packages on top of Fedora and in my experience it was a nightmare that didn't make rpm hell any more tolerable. Apt-cache didn't work (segfault), mixing repositories was next to impossible and lots of dependency errors occured, perhaps due to the fact that the Fedora repos weren't as comprehensive as the Debian/Ubuntu ones.

Listen man, I used apt for RPM for years. It works fine. You may have had problems with it, I have too. Overall it works fine. It's definately tolerable, and is a must for any RPM based distros. As long as you have the right repos in there, it's a great tool.

ember
October 24th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Well - I was on SuSE for a long time and I tried Fedora Core 3. I didn't like the latter one and there were 'only' two reasons for me to leave SuSE:
- It became less stable for me with every release after (hmm ... I think it was 8.2 oder 8.3)
- I don't like KDE and I like it less with every new release

I got to know Ubuntu from Distrowatch (when I was looking for something different) and tried it. And I was convinced by Warty, mainly because of it's neat Gnome interface. I noticed that I really do like Gnome and it's a major feature in Ubuntu that it carries always the newest gnome version (and a lot of other useful GTK-software with it).
I cannot say that it 'just works' - in all my computer life there wasn't a single Linux distribution that just worked out of the box in a way that was acceptable to me.
And, to quote poofy: I hate compiling things from source. Not because I'm not able to, but because I feel it messes up my system.

So far,
ember

voger
October 24th, 2005, 07:47 PM
My very first distribution was Mandrake 7.0 (remember? the user friendly distro?) and i remember that whole week i was sleeping at 3:00 in the morning reinstalling and reinstalling because i couldn't configure my graphics card. Finaly i made it (don't remember how... i think it just felt pitty for me)

After that some linux expert told me "Be a man. Try a real distro" and handed me a copy of Redhat 7.0. That was it. Since then i was dual booting Windows and Redhat 7.0, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0 but without much use because there was no good match for MS Office, no good match for Nero, no good match for almost anything. Only bash and fdisk looked far better than their windows counterparts.

After that tried Suse 9.0. To slow and very buggy. Tried Fedora Core 3 and felt happy. Very fast, very stable and smeled like RedHat all over.

Then Fedora Core 4 came. I had to edit the same config files every other reboot. yum repositories were conflicting each other. Half of the KDE programs didn't run for no reason. Updates were bringing more bugs than eliminating.

After googling and googling for solutions to my problems i was seeing ubuntu everywhere. So i gave it a try and WOW. The damn thing just works. And it is stable. Very stable. And that apt-get thing is like magic.

Now i have booted Winxp for once after 3 months, and that because i needed a cd label program for my new Breezy DVD. If i get the time to learn how to play with wine maybe i will remove copletely Winxp because i need the free space.

poofyhairguy
October 24th, 2005, 08:10 PM
People gotta stop saying this. APT works fine with rpm, and Fedora. Not as well as debian/ubuntu, but it works.


Most of the time when people argue apt vs. yum or whatever they are really arguing that Ubuntu's repos are bigger than Fedoras. Which is true.

denisesballs
October 24th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Most of the time when people argue apt vs. yum or whatever they are really arguing that Ubuntu's repos are bigger than Fedoras. Which is true.

Agreed. YUM is actaually pretty cool. I really liked being able to install an rpm that way too. yum install somerpm.rpm comes in handy when it needs something and it's in the repos. Haven't found a way to do that on Ubuntu yet.

super
October 24th, 2005, 08:21 PM
why did i start using ubuntu?
- because it was at the top of the disrtowatch charts and because it was only one cd.

why do i still use ubuntu?
- because the community support is great!

besides these points i really don't think ubuntu is far superior to my previous distros. underneath it is still linux, and linux is great!! :D

ps. you can consider this my thank you note to the ubuntu community. ;)

Brunellus
October 25th, 2005, 12:49 AM
1) apt. plain and simple. I used apt4rpm in SuSE 9.1, and decided that I wanted to try a distro that did apt , deb, and dpkg natively.

2) GNOME. I wanted to see how the other half lived (SuSE is mainly a KDE-centric distro). I couldn't figure out how to do that in SuSE (I could probably do it now, though), so I went to the Ubuntu Warty.

3) Speed. SuSE 9.1 was a dog on my old hardware. Ubuntu just seemed snappier.

Essentially, I had wanted a Debian that was up-to-date, stable, easy to learn, and newbie-friendly. By newbie-friendly, I mean one that let me learn quickly and easily.

I have subsequently found the ubuntu community to be extremely helpful and easily more polite than many others.

In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should say that, for specialized applications, I also like SLAX and especially DamnSmallLinux.

Goober
October 25th, 2005, 03:59 AM
(Since the Title of this thread mentioned "distro", and not "Linux distro", and I am a literalist, I shall assume that "distro" means "OS distro".)

Considering that my previous distro is XP (forced to dualboot), Ubuntu is much more stabler, much more secure, much, much, much cheaper, much faster, and can multitask.

YourSurrogateGod
October 25th, 2005, 03:15 PM
It's easy to install and work with. Plus there's a community of folks that would help you out. It made Linux use kinda fun.

Nixed0
October 25th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Single CD install, less bloat, and best of all it works!

linbetwin
October 25th, 2005, 03:57 PM
Because Ubuntu made my USB cable modem "just work", unlike Mandrake 10.1 and SUSE 10.0, and because it comes on one CD, no bloatware.

OneSeventeen
October 25th, 2005, 04:09 PM
For me it was having a single CD with a simple install process that installed a fully functional, working linux distro.

The things that keep me using it are the updates, the availablility of paid support if I get stuck (I own a small business and run nothing but ubuntu on my work machines), and the friendlyness of the community.

I used debian once, and it was nice, but the response from the community was more "RTFM" and less "have you tried xxxx?" Whereas here if someone does tell me to read a manual, they usually post which file to look at, and what specifically I need to focus on.

and who could pass up a distro with that cool of a logo and an open source font?

dbw
October 25th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I had just moved to a wireless system in my apartment, and I was trying to get the frelling wifi card to work in RH9... RH kept claiming the drivers were all installed and compiled appropriately, but it still didn't see my card... It seemed, however, that every time someone talked about their wifi problems on a linux forum, someone responded that a native Ubuntu install worked fine. So. Here I am, apparently successfully on te hinternet. I am quite pleased to have made the switch, in general. Thanks Ubuntu Team and community - y'all are rockstars.

guter_gecko
October 25th, 2005, 09:09 PM
after windows ive tried suse, mandrake, yoper and debian, but ubuntu definitly scored on me with the following nice "features":

- the nice hotplug system, which comes out of the box
- a really cool community without the word rtfm in the dictionary
- distroupgrade every 6 month
- good hardware support
- nice usability with 'ye good olde linux' underneath ( you may geek around, but you dont have to)
- once again...apt ^^
- i like the name ubuntu :D

teddy69
October 30th, 2005, 05:37 AM
like other people said, one disc, no rpms, all my hardware detected on isntall (had to use ndiswrapper but no biggie), deb packages, live cd to test and gnome/kde choice, just greatness in one disc

newbie2
October 30th, 2005, 09:50 AM
Ubuntu's Linux Wireless Utility Easier than Windows
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/46385/index.html