Ubuntu: Ubuntu Linux or Just Ubuntu?

[maruchan]

Call me a heretic. Lately I've been thinking that it makes sense to "evangelize" Ubuntu just as Ubuntu and not as Ubuntu Linux, or Ubuntu, the Linux Distro. I have noticed that almost all of my friends carry confused notions about what Linux is, and most of these notions are tilted toward the negative side. So, I've decided to start from scratch.

From now on, when someone says, "wow, what is that and how can I get it," I am just going to say it's Ubuntu and it rawks. If it so happens that they find out about the Linux bit later, become pleasantly surprised, and explore that, fine. But Ubuntu already offers a fine community with great support, custom applications that make it very tight (like Automatix), and the promise of a continually revised experience every 6 months. To me, Ubuntu is its own desktop system now, and I'm not going to let every bad Linux experience someone ever had stand in its way.

Example #1: Friend learned about Linux by purchasing a computer with a cheap Chinese distro pre-installed. He tried a few common tasks, was completely disgusted, and installed Windows over that. Now, when I even mention Linux, he goes into robotic-drone "Linux is just too crippled and cryptic for me" mode. This friend will never hear me go on about Linux again, that's for sure. See also: Gator becomes Claria. ;)

Example #2: Writing to ask someone to make their software compatible with Linux. Never again will this include the word "Linux". What software author with no Linux experience wants to have to sift through a dozen distros to find the best one with which to distribute their software? From now on, it's "please consider supporting Ubuntu, it's a fantastic system with a community that would enthusiastically adopt your software if ported."

Example #3: The workplace: 99% of the time, every suit in the place has heard of Linux and already has a hardened opinion. There's always some bigmouth with a story like, "remember when those guys tried to set up that Linux server and it completely shut our operation down for 2 weeks?" So this is a no-brainer for me. Right now I work for myself, but if I ever need to do this pitch again, it will be Ubuntu-only so I don't have to fight against this tremendous tide of ill-informedness with regard to Linux.

'Nuff said, I've switched to Ubuntu-mode. :p

[Kvark]

Yeah great! I do the same, it's just a trademark, it's not supposed to be correct, it's supposed to be interesting and spark curiosity.

But if it does matter whats correct then calling it Ubuntu Linux is just as wrong as calling it Ubuntu. A correct name would be something like "Ubuntu, Gnome/X11 edition, powered by Debian GNU/Linux." and "Kubuntu, KDE/X11 editition, powered by Debian GNU/Linux."

[raublekick]

Yeah great! I do the same, it's just a trademark, it's not supposed to be correct, it's supposed to be interesting and spark curiosity.

But if it does matter whats correct then calling it Ubuntu Linux is just as wrong as calling it Ubuntu. A correct name would be something like "Ubuntu, Gnome/X11 edition, powered by Debian GNU/Linux." and "Kubuntu, KDE/X11 editition, powered by Debian GNU/Linux."

Haha! I was thinking of similar drawn out names.

How about an opening movie credits style name?

Ubuntu
A GNU/Linux Distribution

[Sheinar]

Example #2: Writing to ask someone to make their software compatible with Linux. Never again will this include the word "Linux". What software author with no Linux experience wants to have to sift through a dozen distros to find the best one with which to distribute their software? From now on, it's "please consider supporting Ubuntu, it's a fantastic system with a community that would enthusiastically adopt your software if ported."
I would never ask a software developer to port their software to one specific distribution. I think they would be downright silly to do so anyway.

[Brunellus]

Haha! I was thinking of similar drawn out names.

How about an opening movie credits style name?

Ubuntu
A GNU/Linux Distribution
Credits are for the *BSD crowd. any such naming scheme on a GNU/Linux distribution will bring down the holy fury of RMS (Peace Be Upon Him)

[jc87]

Just say that there ane manny Gnu/Linux flavors , and that Ubuntu is one of them .

And everyone should choose the flavor that he/she/it prefer.

[Kuolio]

Ummh, guys Ubuntu is just one flavor of Linux. GNU/Linux is the bigger universe, where different distributions are just kinda "different faces" for the same thing: Linux.

Linux is designed to be modular and easily customized OS, that supports the freedom of choise to "pack" your OS for certain usergroup and polish it as well and much as you can. And it gives you freedom to choose what programs like GUI (KDE/Gnome/etc..) or officesuite you want to distribute with it, let it be FOSS or proprietary. It gives you freedom, but with one exception:

You need to give back that you have developed, if it has been done on the shoulders of others (GPL license). So, by it it's only fair that Ubuntu is know as Ubuntu Linux, as it is a distribution of Linux (no, ubuntu does NOT develop "it's own Linux", Ubuntu just distributes work done by others i.e. the kernel team). Ubuntu just packs Linux to a pretty box and smooths out some corners, thats it.

Ubuntu as a whole, is 100% based on work done by the Linux community, and Ubuntu would not be at all w/o Linux-community. Ubuntu is Linux, Linux is Ubuntu, so that's why we will be known for ever as "Ubuntu Linux".

[maruchan]

Guys, I know there are people who like to call it Ubuntu Gnu/Linux or Ubuntu Linux, or a "flavor" of this or that. The reasons are good, but look at my example cases. I think that just calling it "Ubuntu" hands the advantage over to people who are less experienced, and allows them to explore without needlessly calling up their old predjudices.

I am not against giving credit where credit is due, but sometimes it's better to let some things go unmentioned during the pitch so they (Linux) can get proper (good) credit later on.


I would never ask a software developer to port their software to one specific distribution. I think they would be downright silly to do so anyway.

That really depends on what you mean by "port their software to one specific distribution." Can you be more specific? I am talking about supporting Ubuntu as a big fat target to aim for with a solid userbase and healthy development cycle. I'm not saying they should distribute a binary that somehow only works with Ubuntu. Also, I'm sure the fact that Ubuntu = Linux will not escape any developer who's worth their salt, but in my experience, just asking for a Linux port leads to very cautious responses. This is, IMO, partly due to the "zillions of Linux flavors" problem.

[Kuolio]

That really depends on what you mean by "port their software to one specific distribution." Can you be more specific? I am talking about supporting Ubuntu as a big fat target to aim for with a solid userbase and healthy development cycle. I'm not saying they should distribute a binary that somehow only works with Ubuntu. Also, I'm sure the fact that Ubuntu = Linux will not escape any developer who's worth their salt, but in my experience, just asking for a Linux port leads to very cautious responses. This is, IMO, partly due to the "zillions of Linux flavors" problem.

Um, call me stupid if ya like but what is the "zillions of linux flavors"-problem? Too many options to choose from?

I think that you dont quite get the basics now.. there is only ONE Linux Operating System. And from linux, there is different distributions. But they all share the same core, they all are Linux. There is no distribution that is more or less linux, they are just different distributions packed, or aimed for, a certain user group (desktop, server, advanced, tweakers, mom's etc..). But they all are the same linux, they are all developed at the same time.

All linuxes have Linux Kernel, wich is developed by Kernel Team and run by Linus Torvalds. This is the basis of Linux. All distributions have this.

There is windowmanagers and desktop environments, KDE, Gnome, Xfce etc. They are developed apart from the OS itself, and you can use some of them even in other OS's besides linux i.e. *nix variants, *bsd's and such.

Then there is a ton of applications, officesuites etc. They are also all developed independently, and some of them are OS spesific and some are not.

All of these branches are developed independently, but they all derive from the same root, from the same tree. There are developers working on many branches, the development of big projects is quite open and there are big communities surrounding projects. The biggest thing these all share, is that most of the projects are FOSS/GPL-licensed.

Some distributions, like Ubuntu, work closely with some big projects like Gnome, Linux Kernel and even start their own developmentprojects. They take part, and because these are Open Source projects, they all share what they code/invent/do/change. And so the work put to developing/polishing distributions is often very beneficial to the original developmentproject, as it is with Ubuntu and Gnome. Gnome has gained much from the work that ubuntu dev's have done/are doing to polish it. And vice-versa, it's a two way street.

This is the way, that we all affect development in OpenSource land. Because Ubuntu is such a big project, we have impact on many development branches from different app's, de&wm's to kernel development. When you file a bug to ubuntu bugzilla, and it seems to be a "upstream" problem and not distribution spesific, your error message goes (usualy) through to the upstream development team of that project, i.e. KDE.

Now, what linuxdistributions are and how they work. To make a distribution you need these: Kernel, and packages of those programs that you want your distro to have. If you opt to go with Linux Kernel, it dictates that you are now using a Linux OS. And after you choose your core, you opt for different styles of package-management, GUI environments (kde, gnome..) and then for the app's that your distro will have.

And that is what a distribution is. Linux base system + bells and whistless that you choose to be part of your distro. And if you choose open source bells and whistless, you can change/modify them as much as you like to get i.e. more userfriendly functions. Distribution is all the stuff (DE's, WM's and APP's) someone packages on Linux and starts to distribute it to public.

All those extra peripherials dont change the fact, that you are running on GNU/Linux OS. It is Linux that is working under all of those WM's, GUI's and all. It is Linux that is making all those bells and whistless to kling and blow. It is the Linux core that is moving your data between you HW-parts. Linux.

To be part of ubuntu means to be part of something bigger, to be part of GNU/Linux and the FOSS community. We truly are here all together, and if we ever forget our roots, even by in project name, then we are spitting in the face of the rest of the community. If someone has some prejudice against linux.. well, calling Linux as "Cool OS Number Five" and pretending to be something Linux is not wont change a thing. You have to think something better, like to show them how it works and fight prejudice with knowledge.

Sorry for typos, I'm in a hurry and not a native english-speaker! :)

[Malphas]

Personally I don't think you can get away from the fact that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, and the negative opinions held by people towards Linux should be tackled head-on rather than dropping the Linux part of the name in some sort of effort to conceal or hide that fact.

[mfarquhar]

there is only ONE Linux Operating System. And from linux, there is different distributions. But they all share the same core, they all are Linux. There is no distribution that is more or less linux, they are just different distributions packed, or aimed for, a certain user group (desktop, server, advanced, tweakers, mom's etc..). But they all are the same linux, they are all developed at the same time.

All linuxes have Linux Kernel, wich is developed by Kernel Team and run by Linus Torvalds. This is the basis of Linux. All distributions have this.



HERE HERE!!!

i totally agree

[maruchan]

HERE HERE!!!

i totally agree

lol. We all agree on that.


Um, call me stupid if ya like but what is the "zillions of linux flavors"-problem? Too many options to choose from?

There is nothing wrong with *having* all those Linux flavors. It's just that an unfortunate side-effect is that this confuses newbies. I can't count the number of "which distro is the best for me" forum threads I've seen. Have you *seen* some of the recommendations people make in those threads?


Personally I don't think you can get away from the fact that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution,

I don't believe it's smart to throw Linux into every phrase which includes Ubuntu. Anyway, I'm not doing it anymore.


and the negative opinions held by people towards Linux should be tackled head-on rather than dropping the Linux part of the name in some sort of effort to conceal or hide that fact.

That's easy to say, but speaking from experience it's easier just to leave that part for later. Don't hide it, but don't use it as a selling point if you know someone might be Linux-shy. I don't want someone comparing their crappy experience with Fedora Core 1 with my experience every time I say "Linux." When I talk about Ubuntu, I mean Ubuntu. It's just easier that way. And when I wear an Ubuntu T-Shirt, it doesn't have to say Ubuntu Linux. Just Ubuntu, TYVM.

[poofyhairguy]

Um, call me stupid if ya like but what is the "zillions of linux flavors"-problem? Too many options to choose from?

I think that you dont quite get the basics now.. there is only ONE Linux Operating System. And from linux, there is different distributions. But they all share the same core, they all are Linux. There is no distribution that is more or less linux, they are just different distributions packed, or aimed for, a certain user group (desktop, server, advanced, tweakers, mom's etc..). But they all are the same linux, they are all developed at the same time.

All linuxes have Linux Kernel, wich is developed by Kernel Team and run by Linus Torvalds. This is the basis of Linux. All distributions have this.

There is windowmanagers and desktop environments, KDE, Gnome, Xfce etc. They are developed apart from the OS itself, and you can use some of them even in other OS's besides linux i.e. *nix variants, *bsd's and such.

Then there is a ton of applications, officesuites etc. They are also all developed independently, and some of them are OS spesific and some are not.

All of these branches are developed independently, but they all derive from the same root, from the same tree. There are developers working on many branches, the development of big projects is quite open and there are big communities surrounding projects. The biggest thing these all share, is that most of the projects are FOSS/GPL-licensed.


The second biggest thing they all share is that explaining it all to non-techies is sure to scare them away. Non techies do not want to hear "Ubuntu is an OS that uses the Linux kernel with the Gnome desktop Enviroment that is based on the open source Debian distro." To non techies this can be translated as "Ubuntu is too hard for you to use."

But I don't think dropping the Linux part of Ubuntu is always the best bet. Sure that gets rid of preconceptions and gets rid of that complaint of why there isn't a way to install software on all the Linux's easily ("there is no one Linux OS, its a bunch of OSes") but the word Linux is all over the distro "Linux for human beings" so its impossible to sweep this under the rug.

I think its better to preface it with what Linux is (in non nerd terms):

"Linux is the heart of the software that is used in many consumer devices, such as TiVo's and cell phones. Its a common core that Ubuntu Linux also uses to ensure the same level of stability a device like a TiVO needs to have. By being based on Linux, Ubuntu establishes itself as a quality product that have has been improved by the many persons and corporations that have spent resources to improve the Linux heart of all of these software systems."

[Hendry]

Just let people work with Ubuntu a while, tell them this is Ubuntu and this is Linux. Look how surprised people will be. I think Ubuntu Linux is the right name... you cannot change the fact that this is a Linux Distro, so why hide it?

[endersshadow]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the original poster meant that Ubuntu, Gnome/X11, based on Debian GNU/Linux would be best marketted as just simply "Ubuntu." It's short, it's sweet, and there are no preconceptions in anybody's head about "Ubuntu," unless they're a native African...which I've come across...but the connotation is good for them, so woohoo. The intent is to market it as "Ubuntu" first and then "Ubuntu Linux" second. Linux, at the time, has this "hacker" type of stigma about it. Every time I'm using my computer in public, someone always looks over my shoulder and goes, "How did you make your computer look like that?!" and I respond, "Well, this is Ubuntu, not Windows or Mac. It's a Linux distribution." The immediate response is, "Wait, it looks good though." For some reason, people associate Linux with an unpolished and incomplete OS that's used by hackers. While users like you and me are fully aware of the kernal and what Linux actually is, the average person is not. Therefore, it's important to bill it as something with a positive connotation at first, and then, once the user is comfortable and pleasantly surprised by the OS (as they should be), them finding out whether or not it's Linux is really not that big of a deal.

The point is not to hide the fact that Ubuntu isn't a Linux distribution, but market it as something new and wonderful (which it is), and then let them know that it is Linux. It's like the Pepsi taste challenge, but you're not blindfolded :-D

[maruchan]

Kvark, your trademark reply is right on. Endersshadow, yep, pretty much :) (Edit: that blindfolded remark is awesome, maybe someone should try that)

Ok, so to sum things up:

-No one is taking your Linux away.

-"GNU/Linux/Federation of Concerned Users of Ambiguous Software Titles Ubuntu by Mark Shuttleworth in Cooperation with the Debian Alliance for Allied Debians" is indeed probably the correct pronunciation.

-Don't feel guilty calling it "Ubuntu," come on, it's fun!

:cool:

[GreyFox503]

Personally I don't think you can get away from the fact that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, and the negative opinions held by people towards Linux should be tackled head-on rather than dropping the Linux part of the name in some sort of effort to conceal or hide that fact.

Exactly. This is what I was thinking. By choosing not to include the word "linux" it's as if it is bad or something to hide.

[endersshadow]

Exactly. This is what I was thinking. By choosing not to include the word "linux" it's as if it is bad or something to hide.

It's not about hiding the word "Linux," it's about tackling the negative connotations by showing them what it's capable of doing, and then telling them about Ubuntu's roots.

At any rate, it's all choice. If you want to market it as simply "Ubuntu" there's nothing wrong with that--it's what it's called. If you want to market it as "Ubuntu Linux" that's fine, too. manchuran was just trying to relate his experiences that he's found it easier to sell people on the idea by introducing it as simply "Ubuntu" and adding on the Linux part later.