Or: "The Futility of trying to fit square Windows users into round Linux holes."
Even the best of us blow it sometime, and some of us idiot bloggers blow it every day. My last post will have a place next anniversary as this year's "What Was I Thinking" award.
Let's start over, shall we? Here's my logic for this idea:
Linux started out 15 years ago as a free version of Unix. With me so far? OK.
Currently, the system with the biggest user share is Microsoft Windows. A lot of people want to leave it. This is a GOOD thing! A lot of people just want something that works without needing a Master's Degree in computer science. I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THAT! It is a *GOOD* thing that they are able to seek their own freedom, however they define it. I haven't messed up yet, have I?
Now, there's this project called "ReactOS", which is being built as a free replacement for Windows. Same license as Linux, same intentions, different system. I cheer it on every chance I get. I WANT Windows users to have a free system that works like Windows. After all, I got what I wanted (Linux, the free system that works like Unix.), so it's only fair that others get what they want. Are we still on the same page?
For reason/reasons unknown, ex-Windows users leaving Windows and seeking a free alternative somehow do not seem to be flocking to ReactOS. By all logic, the ReactOS project should be swimming in the cheering masses supporting it with donations and coding help. Surely, some of those ex-Windows users must have a hand in programming for the Windows environment? But anyway...
Instead, the Windows users are coming to Linux in general. I AM FINE WITH THAT TOO. But we hear a lot of complaints from the ex-Windows users that Linux is difficult for them to get used to. They want a free system that is Windows-like, and here they have a free system which is Unix-like.
I am not saying that they are right. I am not saying that they are wrong. I am saying "Look at these unhappy people; they are not getting what they want." THIS IS A BAD THING. Have I stepped on any land mines yet?
Now, I (and the rest of you Linux natives, feel free to chime in here any time...) have tried for years to explain why Linux is a Unix and not a Windows. I (and I know I'm not the Lone Ranger here!) have tried to explain that the ways in which Linux is different are also reasons why Linux doesn't have the same problems as Windows. But, of course, Windows users didn't come to Linux looking for a speech - they came here looking for a free replacement for Windows. Am I still wearing pants up here? OK.
The tension between the Linux natives and the influx of Linux immigrants produces a lot of flame wars. I'm not imagining that, am I? Is there not a lot of strife between tribes? Nobody's backing down, because they're both "right". I'm not typing too fast for you, am I? Take a break if you want to meditate on this before continuing.
OK, so as a next-best step - perhaps until a free Windows can be realized in full - we have these Linux distros that are trying to stretch themselves like taffy to fit Windows users. Half a dozen of these are trying to be a really close match to a Windows replacement. Then there's dozens more that are simply trying to be a beginner's Linux, which is different still, because it's a Unix system and not a Windows lookalike, but for beginners. The Linux distro which, by large consensus of votes, has won the Windows look-alike contest is Ubuntu. Is everybody still with the group?
I AM STILL COOL WITH THIS! It doesn't make any logical sense to me why the ex-Windows users keep coming to Linux looking for a Windows substitute. Just as it also wouldn't make any sense if all ??,???,??? of us Linux natives showed up on ReactOS's bulletin board crying that ReactOS doesn't work just like Unix. But it's happening anyway; crowds do not always reason the same way as an individual would, which duz makes economics such interestin' sciences. Is my nose growing yet?
So. Now. We have a new home for Windows users. They seem to be happy there. We have the rest of Linux for the Linux users. We're unbearable smug about it. Everybody has what they need, or at least close enough for now.
And in honor of that distinguishing and triumphant victory in the category of Most Outstanding Performance by a Windows Impersonator, I nominate that Ubuntu be crowned and knighted as the designated New Free Windows, that all Windows huddled masses yearning to breathe free be directed to it forthwith. Including these reformative measures:
1. That all complaints about other Linux distros not being more like Windows be responded-to with "Pardon me, you have the wrong distro. Ubuntu has what you want." Help the Windows users get what they want.
2. That Ubuntu be released from all obligation to remotely resemble Unix. Help the Windows users get what they want.
3. That we all continue to support ReactOS, because even as good a job as Ubuntu is doing wearing Windows drag, ReactOS is actually being built from the first line of code as a Windows substitute. Help the Windows users get what they want.
4. That we continue to welcome users who want to stop being Windows users and become Linux users. That's what websites like mine are for. But...
But maybe we Linux natives don't make this clear enough. Perhaps we could have some kind of baptismal ceremony, where you bust a window to signify your forsaking of Microsoft's ways, put on black-and-white penguin robes and get dunked in iceberg water and when you arise, you get a Linux name. "Joe Sixpack the Windows user is laid to rest. Arise, Poindexter, the newly born Linux geek." And if you change your mind, you can always have a reverse ritual to leave the Linux world and get re-united with the Windows way.
The only rule is that you can't sit in both pews at the same time. Not because of any silly taboo, but for the practical, pragmatic, efficient reason that when you do that, it confuses the hell out of everybody, especially yourself.
Can I get off time-out, now?
Comments:
Comment from:
Steve Dean [Visitor]
· http://www.stevedean.com
Why aren't the Win users flocking to ReactOS? Becouse it isn't ready.
This is from there website today: "Please bear in mind that ReactOS 0.3.1 is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature complete and is not recommended for everyday use."
Not many Windows users would have much use for a buggy alpha vertion. So when this gets to a 1.0 release and runs most (if not all) win programs, you can bet there will be a lot of interest.
Thank you for bring this to our attention. I will keep watching this one.
This is from there website today: "Please bear in mind that ReactOS 0.3.1 is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature complete and is not recommended for everyday use."
Not many Windows users would have much use for a buggy alpha vertion. So when this gets to a 1.0 release and runs most (if not all) win programs, you can bet there will be a lot of interest.
Thank you for bring this to our attention. I will keep watching this one.
Comment from:
pashabear [Visitor]
Interesting... You claim that Ubuntu is for Windoze users, but I'm amazed that it's the most popular of any distro! Following your logic, there are _far_ more Windoze migrants than "Free Unix" users. But my experience counters that. Yes, there are more and more Windoze migrants (myself included), but I'm pretty sure the largest base of Linux users are what you refer to as those looking for a "Free Unix". If Ubuntu is "Free Windows", why do these people like it? I think your argument is typical of the "Balkanization" of the OS space. Some people _want_ to have "our camp, your camp". But the vast majority of users want their OS to "just work". That's where Ubuntu excels. I disagree that wanting the system to work is the hallmark of a Windows user - why do I (and many others) refer to it as Windoze? Because it "just DOESN'T work"!! If you have a working system, then you can do whatever you want - be it hacking the kernel, mucking around with space probes, or mundane stuff like writing blogs (sorry, had to get that in there).
Comment from:
lefty.crupps [Visitor]
· http://gnuski.blogspot.com
It's an interesting concept, but who made Ubuntu the new Windows? You, because it solves a few more config problems on its own? Or because it's popular due to ease-of-use and inviting to newcomers?
If you like the idea of a "Lindows" I know one place to point you, but you can't use that name ;) Or you can create your own distro. Maybe the other dozen distros all want to be like Windows, who is to say that one has it better than the other? (I think they're all a bit nuts though)
Point is, I like my Kubuntu because it is Linux with a pretty straight Unix heritage. Yep, I came from Windows. Yep, I promote this system, daily. Yep, it's a lot different and I learn more every day if I start to dig into something. But do I miss anything about the Windows experience? Not a thing.
ReactOS is amazing, and I can only imagine it'll get better. Maybe I'll use it a bit. It's actually making me look for some Windows software to test the OS with, since all I have these days is... well, the Free GNU/Linux/GPL software on my Kubuntu system...
I was with your agruments, generally, until this:
[quote] So. Now. We have a new home for Windows users. They seem to be happy there. We have the rest of Linux for the Linux users. We're unbearable smug about it. Everybody has what they need, or at least close enough for now.[/quote]
And then the next paragraph was just jack-arsy.
If you like the idea of a "Lindows" I know one place to point you, but you can't use that name ;) Or you can create your own distro. Maybe the other dozen distros all want to be like Windows, who is to say that one has it better than the other? (I think they're all a bit nuts though)
Point is, I like my Kubuntu because it is Linux with a pretty straight Unix heritage. Yep, I came from Windows. Yep, I promote this system, daily. Yep, it's a lot different and I learn more every day if I start to dig into something. But do I miss anything about the Windows experience? Not a thing.
ReactOS is amazing, and I can only imagine it'll get better. Maybe I'll use it a bit. It's actually making me look for some Windows software to test the OS with, since all I have these days is... well, the Free GNU/Linux/GPL software on my Kubuntu system...
I was with your agruments, generally, until this:
[quote] So. Now. We have a new home for Windows users. They seem to be happy there. We have the rest of Linux for the Linux users. We're unbearable smug about it. Everybody has what they need, or at least close enough for now.[/quote]
And then the next paragraph was just jack-arsy.
Comment from:
WoundedChin [Visitor]
I really don't know why do you need to slander Ubuntu that much. Not all ex-windozers whine how Linux is not like windoze. I for example, have always wanted to migrate to Linux, but did not have a distro handy (that was back when high-speed connections were few and far between). As for other *nices, i remember playing with solaris on a mainframe VT220 terminal (no, i'm not THAT old, as a high school student i could acsess some ancient public terminals that were there so that computing engineering students with general *nix knowlege could MUD and check emails. Anyway, as a result of yout rants, i'm going to order slackware CD's to check it out (only 3$, and they deliver it to your front door!)
so i'll let yout know how the experiment went.
so i'll let yout know how the experiment went.
Comment from:
Manon [Visitor]
What about Windows users who need time to learn a new system? Why shouldn't we use both Linux and Windows/ReactOS?
Comment from:
arkoudi [Visitor]
Linux...for sure is Way too different from windows...fo me it is better. Cause it is like a riddle..everytime something comes up..you have to solve it. Some users cannot afford to pay for Windows so they have to work with something else.. Linux is the answer. Ubuntu is a distro like other linux distros if you see it as linux...but It has a very big community, a lot of packages and with a simple apt command or gui you get what you want from the repositories. That's why most people who migrate from windows to Linux use Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu my self but before that I tried other distros. Time is money...for some ppl there is no time for compiling or configuring files through terminal. So you have to understand that. If you want to do harcore things with linux you can do it in every single linux distro is out there. Don't blame ubuntu for bringing the easy way to Users. Take the beryl team for example..this guys did amazing things for FREE...I use it for FREE..I don't know even how it works and I use it for FREE. They let me do it..The only thing I can do is to support them by using it and report problems that may arise. They are happy, I'm happy. I think that you don't like the Idea that some ppl get something without trying and others get the same thing with hours of studying. That's the way this world works.. I don't have a problem with that. Cause you will need help in something that these "windows migrants" will know and you won't. Something else I want to say...Ubuntu is the most popular distro because it earned it. Nobody said that linux should not be for users that migrate from windows or other OSes. Ubuntu does a great job so its community...sorry for my english anyway I think most of you understand what I want to say.. :)
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@pashabear
"I think your argument is typical of the 'Balkanization' of the OS space. Some people _want_ to have 'our camp, your camp'. But the vast majority of users want their OS to 'just work'."
Aaaahh, tut, tut. But users voluntarily balkanize themselves! Because my definition of 'just work' is different for somebody else's. The extra features that one person needs are just getting in the way for somebody else.
Distros balkanize themselves as well. Quite a few out there advertise themselves as a Windows replacement, while other boast being 'classic Linux'.
@lefty.crupps
Yes, there's Lindows, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, and a host of others. It's a mystery why Ubuntu got to the top spot for ex-Windows users while these other distros didn't. But here we are anyway.
@WoundedChin
"I really don't know why do you need to slander Ubuntu that much."
I don't get it. How is it slander to say that Ubuntu faithfully recreates the Windows experience for those who don't want to learn Linux? Is it slander to say that Slackware models Unix, or grml with emulators running makes a good plan9, or GNUStep faithfully re-creates the NeXtStep environment?
No right. No wrong. Check it; I said that!
@arkoudi
"Don't blame ubuntu for bringing the easy way to Users."
But I'm complimenting Ubuntu for bringing the easy way to users!!!
Astounding... I guess some people are determined to see me attacking Ubuntu no matter what I say...
"I think your argument is typical of the 'Balkanization' of the OS space. Some people _want_ to have 'our camp, your camp'. But the vast majority of users want their OS to 'just work'."
Aaaahh, tut, tut. But users voluntarily balkanize themselves! Because my definition of 'just work' is different for somebody else's. The extra features that one person needs are just getting in the way for somebody else.
Distros balkanize themselves as well. Quite a few out there advertise themselves as a Windows replacement, while other boast being 'classic Linux'.
@lefty.crupps
Yes, there's Lindows, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, and a host of others. It's a mystery why Ubuntu got to the top spot for ex-Windows users while these other distros didn't. But here we are anyway.
@WoundedChin
"I really don't know why do you need to slander Ubuntu that much."
I don't get it. How is it slander to say that Ubuntu faithfully recreates the Windows experience for those who don't want to learn Linux? Is it slander to say that Slackware models Unix, or grml with emulators running makes a good plan9, or GNUStep faithfully re-creates the NeXtStep environment?
No right. No wrong. Check it; I said that!
@arkoudi
"Don't blame ubuntu for bringing the easy way to Users."
But I'm complimenting Ubuntu for bringing the easy way to users!!!
Astounding... I guess some people are determined to see me attacking Ubuntu no matter what I say...
Comment from:
andrew [Visitor]
· http://andrew.org
Pete,
don't mean to polemize here, after all I consider myself part of what you call the "Linux native" crowd, though I admitted here before (with some guilt) that Ubuntu is what I use right now.
I've been following your blog entries about Ubuntu with interest (though I like other posts better), but I still haven't found exactly what you dislike so much about Ubuntu.
Reading your review of 6.10, your main worries seem to be hardware compatibility and slugginess. This does not seem to match my own experience in the least (for what it's worth, but it's all I have).
I'm genuinely interested in this to understand what I'm missing, since I came to respect your opinion and, apart from copyright/licensing issues, the discomfort I feel from (potential) lack of diversity and a general, healthy (IMO) suspicion about Canonical, all non-tech issues, there's not so much I dislike about Ubuntu.
To further clarify my position, the main reason why I switched to Ubuntu from debian was crypto signatures for APT packages. I'm pretty sure that the current debian stable has signed packages, so I may as well switch back.
don't mean to polemize here, after all I consider myself part of what you call the "Linux native" crowd, though I admitted here before (with some guilt) that Ubuntu is what I use right now.
I've been following your blog entries about Ubuntu with interest (though I like other posts better), but I still haven't found exactly what you dislike so much about Ubuntu.
Reading your review of 6.10, your main worries seem to be hardware compatibility and slugginess. This does not seem to match my own experience in the least (for what it's worth, but it's all I have).
I'm genuinely interested in this to understand what I'm missing, since I came to respect your opinion and, apart from copyright/licensing issues, the discomfort I feel from (potential) lack of diversity and a general, healthy (IMO) suspicion about Canonical, all non-tech issues, there's not so much I dislike about Ubuntu.
To further clarify my position, the main reason why I switched to Ubuntu from debian was crypto signatures for APT packages. I'm pretty sure that the current debian stable has signed packages, so I may as well switch back.
Comment from:
egroeg [Visitor]
so ubuntu users are on training wheels and shouldn't call themselves linux users?
Comment from:
lefty.crupps [Visitor]
· http://gnuski.blogspot.com
@Penguin Pete:
"Yes, there's Lindows, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, and a host of others. It's a mystery why Ubuntu got to the top spot for ex-Windows users while these other distros didn't. But here we are anyway."
Yes, here we are, using Linux. Not, here we are using Not-Ubuntu, there they are using Ubuntu.
I think the reason people see you attacking Ubuntu is because you're telling us that Ubuntu is now, because you said so, the place for Windows users to go and the rest of us should be using other Linuxi. You're also telling us that it is no longer Linux, but not backing that up in any way. I think that the rest of us believe in freedom of choice, and find that Ubuntu either DOES or DOES NOT fit us, but it doesn't have much to do with Windows at this point.
Just because something is easy doesn't mean its for idiots or the clueless. I've played with my share of distros, and continue to do so, but Kubuntu is where i return because I don't have to fight with it. Doesn't make it less Linux. And I am curious as to the huge differences that you seem to find within Ubuntu and the rest of Linux. By adding RPM, did RedHat suddenly become not-Linux, back in the 1990s? Because that made a lot of things easier for users (at the time; it sucks now).
"Yes, there's Lindows, Xandros, PCLinuxOS, and a host of others. It's a mystery why Ubuntu got to the top spot for ex-Windows users while these other distros didn't. But here we are anyway."
Yes, here we are, using Linux. Not, here we are using Not-Ubuntu, there they are using Ubuntu.
I think the reason people see you attacking Ubuntu is because you're telling us that Ubuntu is now, because you said so, the place for Windows users to go and the rest of us should be using other Linuxi. You're also telling us that it is no longer Linux, but not backing that up in any way. I think that the rest of us believe in freedom of choice, and find that Ubuntu either DOES or DOES NOT fit us, but it doesn't have much to do with Windows at this point.
Just because something is easy doesn't mean its for idiots or the clueless. I've played with my share of distros, and continue to do so, but Kubuntu is where i return because I don't have to fight with it. Doesn't make it less Linux. And I am curious as to the huge differences that you seem to find within Ubuntu and the rest of Linux. By adding RPM, did RedHat suddenly become not-Linux, back in the 1990s? Because that made a lot of things easier for users (at the time; it sucks now).
Comment from:
rcjhawk [Visitor]
· http://hawknotes.blogspot.com/
Look: Ubuntu is Linux because I can open an xterm and issue the command:
$ ./loop_to_send_Pete_annoying_email_in_perpetuity &
and it will do so, even after I log out, so long as I don't turn the machine off, drop the Internet connection (or have it dropped by my ISP for trying that stunt), or reboot. That "&" is why I dropped Windows NT way back when. (Contents of loop not available for public distribution.)
And, yeah, a lot of people won't know what the "&" does. But I do.
So what if Ubuntu wants to increase its market share by catering to the Those Who Leave Windows, well, good for them. As long as I can run FVWM, emacs, xpaint, xine, etc., etc., yada, yada, I care frak-all* what else you can do with the OS. And if for some reason Ubuntu doesn't serve my needs in the future, well, it's "Sorry, Charlie." But for now, it does just fine.
As long as you don't take away my &
P.S. If ReactOS doesn't replicate all of Windows XP's security holes, is it really Windows?
*Sorry if anyone's offended by the frak. I already got into trouble this week by saying "friggin'" on the phone, so I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone with frak.
$ ./loop_to_send_Pete_annoying_email_in_perpetuity &
and it will do so, even after I log out, so long as I don't turn the machine off, drop the Internet connection (or have it dropped by my ISP for trying that stunt), or reboot. That "&" is why I dropped Windows NT way back when. (Contents of loop not available for public distribution.)
And, yeah, a lot of people won't know what the "&" does. But I do.
So what if Ubuntu wants to increase its market share by catering to the Those Who Leave Windows, well, good for them. As long as I can run FVWM, emacs, xpaint, xine, etc., etc., yada, yada, I care frak-all* what else you can do with the OS. And if for some reason Ubuntu doesn't serve my needs in the future, well, it's "Sorry, Charlie." But for now, it does just fine.
As long as you don't take away my &
P.S. If ReactOS doesn't replicate all of Windows XP's security holes, is it really Windows?
*Sorry if anyone's offended by the frak. I already got into trouble this week by saying "friggin'" on the phone, so I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone with frak.
Comment from:
Nathan Fisher [Visitor]
Funny, but I think I must be the only person who basically agrees with you here. I tried Ubuntu, and really tried hard to like it. The thing is, it was too slow and took too much work to make it do what I wanted it to, so I ended up dropping it pretty quick.
Frankly I don't see how it works any better than Fedora, with the exception that Yum is still slow no matter how many times they clain to have sped it up. But my Fedora installation works at least as flawlessly as Ubuntu does and offers a lot more configurability. Plus it comes with a toolchain.
Even Slackware pretty much "just works" these days. I have it installed on two computers now, and really it's about the only "major" distro that can run on my ancient Toshiba laptop. Plus it comes by default with Fluxbox. There are computers I just plain cannot install Ubuntu on because Gnome would take an hour to start, before I could get to installing something else. I know I could do some magic manually but it kind of defeats the purpose.
I'd also have to disagree pretty strongly with the comments that Ubuntu is what "most users are using right now". It may be the most used distribution, but it's only a drop in the bucket if you were to total all the Linux users up. That's elementary math. And frankly I think if the present course holds then OpenSuse will be overtaking Ubuntu as relates to user base sometime in the next year or so.
Ubuntu is by many accounts a huge success, and I applaud the project for being so good at what it is intended for. At the same time I shudder to think of being forced to use it myself. The best thing about Linux is being able to choose how your system is configured and modify it if you like. Even if all that entails is changing the desktop theme around a bit.
I guess for me the best desktop and OS is one I've put together a piece at a time and configured to suit my tastes. I just can't see doing that with Ubuntu because it would be TOO MUCH WORK.
Frankly I don't see how it works any better than Fedora, with the exception that Yum is still slow no matter how many times they clain to have sped it up. But my Fedora installation works at least as flawlessly as Ubuntu does and offers a lot more configurability. Plus it comes with a toolchain.
Even Slackware pretty much "just works" these days. I have it installed on two computers now, and really it's about the only "major" distro that can run on my ancient Toshiba laptop. Plus it comes by default with Fluxbox. There are computers I just plain cannot install Ubuntu on because Gnome would take an hour to start, before I could get to installing something else. I know I could do some magic manually but it kind of defeats the purpose.
I'd also have to disagree pretty strongly with the comments that Ubuntu is what "most users are using right now". It may be the most used distribution, but it's only a drop in the bucket if you were to total all the Linux users up. That's elementary math. And frankly I think if the present course holds then OpenSuse will be overtaking Ubuntu as relates to user base sometime in the next year or so.
Ubuntu is by many accounts a huge success, and I applaud the project for being so good at what it is intended for. At the same time I shudder to think of being forced to use it myself. The best thing about Linux is being able to choose how your system is configured and modify it if you like. Even if all that entails is changing the desktop theme around a bit.
I guess for me the best desktop and OS is one I've put together a piece at a time and configured to suit my tastes. I just can't see doing that with Ubuntu because it would be TOO MUCH WORK.
Comment from:
Ivan Stojic [Visitor]
I don't see how Ubuntu tries to "stretch itself like taffy to fit Windows users". Ubuntu is a GNU/Linux system, slightly polished and with GNOME as default desktop environment. It doesn't try to fit Windows users, it tries to fit users in general. Most users want easy to use GUI and easy system administration. Ubuntu simply tries to provide this. It isn't a "Windows look-alike", it is simply easy to use.
Windows users have lots of difficulties when coming to GNU/Linux due to differences between these operating systems, so they are most likely to choose distro that works out of the box so that they have an easier start. So they choose Ubuntu. Saying that Ubuntu isn't for Linux users (or that it isn't Linux) because Windows users use it is simply wrong.
If you don't like Ubuntu then you should use some other distro. Many Linux users like Ubuntu so they use it. Again, saying that Ubuntu isn't for Linux users is just plain wrong - it isn't for all Linux users, but no distro is. If a Linux user likes Debian and GNOME, then it is likely that he will like Ubuntu. When using it, he is still a Linux user using Linux system.
Windows users have lots of difficulties when coming to GNU/Linux due to differences between these operating systems, so they are most likely to choose distro that works out of the box so that they have an easier start. So they choose Ubuntu. Saying that Ubuntu isn't for Linux users (or that it isn't Linux) because Windows users use it is simply wrong.
If you don't like Ubuntu then you should use some other distro. Many Linux users like Ubuntu so they use it. Again, saying that Ubuntu isn't for Linux users is just plain wrong - it isn't for all Linux users, but no distro is. If a Linux user likes Debian and GNOME, then it is likely that he will like Ubuntu. When using it, he is still a Linux user using Linux system.
Comment from:
bro [Visitor]
obviously, ubuntu is immensly popular among linux users. Unfortunately there are no windows users looking for alternatives. There are only linux users looking for good operating systems -stuff that works -like ubuntu is.
I know 'grand geeks' that _use_ ubuntu for that reason and _geek_ on other systems just for fun.
I know 'grand geeks' that _use_ ubuntu for that reason and _geek_ on other systems just for fun.
Comment from:
Robert Devi [Visitor]
> But my Fedora installation works at least as flawlessly as Ubuntu does and
> offers a lot more configurability. Plus it comes with a toolchain.
As a former Fedora user and current Ubuntu user, I'm curious what you found was less configurable in Ubuntu. I've found the reverse to be true.
I think what's tripping you up is that Ubuntu does things the Debian way which is different than the Red Hat way. If you try to use Fedora the Debian way or Ubuntu the Red Hat way, you're bound to be frustrated.
> Plus it comes with a toolchain.
That's a feature, not a bug. The point of Ubuntu is that you don't *have to* use a compiler for anything. Having a compiler and a full tool chain installed is pointless for the desktop and server space, so why install it by default? If you want the tool chain, though, a simple apt-get install of build-essentials does the trick. Ubuntu follows the same minimalistic approach to everything. It saves disk space and reduces potential security holes (the more software that's installed, the more vectors there are for vulnerabilities). Fluxbox, ICEwm, twenty different IRC clients, etc aren't installed by default but are easily available through a simple apt-get or Synaptic.
But relating to the Fluxbox issue, one of the nice things about the Ubuntu approach is that if you want Fluxbox or XFCE, you already have downloadable isos that are optimized for these window managers that use the Ubuntu repositories. Alternately, you could install the minimal system and do an apt-get of XFCE and Fluxbox if you want to have fine grained control. This is one area where Fedora is starting to become wise to with their next release which is taking a more "the distro is just one configuration of the repository" approach.
> offers a lot more configurability. Plus it comes with a toolchain.
As a former Fedora user and current Ubuntu user, I'm curious what you found was less configurable in Ubuntu. I've found the reverse to be true.
I think what's tripping you up is that Ubuntu does things the Debian way which is different than the Red Hat way. If you try to use Fedora the Debian way or Ubuntu the Red Hat way, you're bound to be frustrated.
> Plus it comes with a toolchain.
That's a feature, not a bug. The point of Ubuntu is that you don't *have to* use a compiler for anything. Having a compiler and a full tool chain installed is pointless for the desktop and server space, so why install it by default? If you want the tool chain, though, a simple apt-get install of build-essentials does the trick. Ubuntu follows the same minimalistic approach to everything. It saves disk space and reduces potential security holes (the more software that's installed, the more vectors there are for vulnerabilities). Fluxbox, ICEwm, twenty different IRC clients, etc aren't installed by default but are easily available through a simple apt-get or Synaptic.
But relating to the Fluxbox issue, one of the nice things about the Ubuntu approach is that if you want Fluxbox or XFCE, you already have downloadable isos that are optimized for these window managers that use the Ubuntu repositories. Alternately, you could install the minimal system and do an apt-get of XFCE and Fluxbox if you want to have fine grained control. This is one area where Fedora is starting to become wise to with their next release which is taking a more "the distro is just one configuration of the repository" approach.
Comment from:
illoki [Visitor]
"Not many Windows users would have much use for a buggy alpha vertion"
Isn't that pretty much any 'doze release?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Isn't that pretty much any 'doze release?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Comment from:
W. Anderson [Visitor]
· http://www.kimalcorp.org
I was of the impression that both Linspire/Freespire and Xandros were the most "Windows-like" and specifically catered to transitioning Windows users.
I do not think that Ubuntu is purposely trying to be Xandros or Freespire - as Windows clone, except in the Gnome User Interface area, but Kubuntu dispells that notion.
For past five years I have experienced same scenario of windows users looking for Free! Windows clone. I now send them to Reactos in hopes they stay there.
It will never!, repeat never! work to (try) satisfy these disillusioned Windows users by producing a GNU/Linux Windows clone.
I do not think that Ubuntu is purposely trying to be Xandros or Freespire - as Windows clone, except in the Gnome User Interface area, but Kubuntu dispells that notion.
For past five years I have experienced same scenario of windows users looking for Free! Windows clone. I now send them to Reactos in hopes they stay there.
It will never!, repeat never! work to (try) satisfy these disillusioned Windows users by producing a GNU/Linux Windows clone.
Comment from:
Rex007can [Visitor]
You know what I think? I think the problem comes from the "mine is better than yours" people.
.
See, lots of people will crap on a specific distro because it's too much like Windows, it's not secure enough, it doesn't install software from tarballs, it's not secure enought etc etc. Everybody's an expert on what's the BEST for EVERYONE.
.
Me, I say CHILL people. There is no ONE distro that is the best! It doesn't exist, it's a utopian dream to think that someone, anyone, could possible create a distro that will satisfy "everyone". So people should all chill, accept that what they like or need is not what everyone would like and need, and that just because some distros are better at some things doesn't mean all the other ones suck. Which is what you hear all the time from the smug bastards your talking about.
.
I think you're more right than you think...To each his own and lets offer the unbearably smug people a steaming cup of STFU.
.
Yeah...command line is more powerfull. Yeah tarballs are more complete and less buggy plus you can see the source. But no, command line is not for you if you like to drive an automatic car instead of a 15 speed +5 reverse manual tranny...
.
See, lots of people will crap on a specific distro because it's too much like Windows, it's not secure enough, it doesn't install software from tarballs, it's not secure enought etc etc. Everybody's an expert on what's the BEST for EVERYONE.
.
Me, I say CHILL people. There is no ONE distro that is the best! It doesn't exist, it's a utopian dream to think that someone, anyone, could possible create a distro that will satisfy "everyone". So people should all chill, accept that what they like or need is not what everyone would like and need, and that just because some distros are better at some things doesn't mean all the other ones suck. Which is what you hear all the time from the smug bastards your talking about.
.
I think you're more right than you think...To each his own and lets offer the unbearably smug people a steaming cup of STFU.
.
Yeah...command line is more powerfull. Yeah tarballs are more complete and less buggy plus you can see the source. But no, command line is not for you if you like to drive an automatic car instead of a 15 speed +5 reverse manual tranny...
Comment from:
Sergio [Visitor]
· http://www.openkairos.com/
Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu, I'm sick, really sick of hearing "how amazing is Ubuntu".
Ubuntu is used for many Windows users mainly because Mark Shuttleworh has money enough to make a really huge hype. Don't look for technical reasons.
People like to order tons of CD an receive them, and People love that a "Open Source" Bill Gates has arised...
But, please, please, before to spread hype, look beyond the hype...
Ubuntu is used for many Windows users mainly because Mark Shuttleworh has money enough to make a really huge hype. Don't look for technical reasons.
People like to order tons of CD an receive them, and People love that a "Open Source" Bill Gates has arised...
But, please, please, before to spread hype, look beyond the hype...
Comment from:
fstephens [Visitor]
· http://DIYComputerHelp.com
I agree with most posters that you are way off base here. First, I think Ubuntu is more Mac-like than Windows-like. Kubuntu may be more like Windows, but no more so than many other KDE based distros. I am using it now, after 3-4 years on Gentoo as my main system. I started with Linux with Red Hat 5.2, so I am hardly a newbie. I just want to spend more time USING it and less time FIXING it right now.
Freespire would fit your preconception better.
Freespire would fit your preconception better.
Comment from:
WoundedChin [Visitor]
As a note, this article has been mentioned on lxer, and the comments are almost identical.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
"on lxer, and the comments are almost identical."
Yep, with even my arch-nemesis blogger, the Interface Nazi, chortling at my imminent demise.
You know, sometimes you have a borderline idea and go 'hmmmm' and post it to hear what others think. Sometimes the idea resonates with a lot of people, and sometimes it dies on a spit. Still, I'd rather see an edgy post flop every now and then than to have one of those gushy fanboy blogs.
The fact remains, people leaving Windows will eventually go Somewhere, and wherever that Somewhere is, will determine the next desktop revolution. I'd rather leave all opinions over what is the better or worse system behind and focus on the problem of what to do with these people and what the best solution for all parties concerned is.
Yep, with even my arch-nemesis blogger, the Interface Nazi, chortling at my imminent demise.
You know, sometimes you have a borderline idea and go 'hmmmm' and post it to hear what others think. Sometimes the idea resonates with a lot of people, and sometimes it dies on a spit. Still, I'd rather see an edgy post flop every now and then than to have one of those gushy fanboy blogs.
The fact remains, people leaving Windows will eventually go Somewhere, and wherever that Somewhere is, will determine the next desktop revolution. I'd rather leave all opinions over what is the better or worse system behind and focus on the problem of what to do with these people and what the best solution for all parties concerned is.
Comment from:
Nathan Fisher [Visitor]
> I'm curious what you found was less configurable in Ubuntu.
Let me start with the installation. With Fedora, I can easily choose which packages I want to install, or at lest the package groups. Ubuntu pretty much just installs everything. As an aside, Debian proper will also let you choose just what you want, and so will Slackware.
Going a bit further I've installed several lightweight WM's on Ubuntu in the past, and then discovered that I had a fully empty menu. I would think this would put off newish users, when Debian will install a WM and fully populate the menu for you.
A lot of people are less than happy about having sudo forced down their throats too. I'm well aware that I can change Ubuntu's behavior to allow root to log in, but most new users won't know how and it is perceived as a restriction.
The last I checked Ubuntu's repos were a tiny fraction of what is available in some other distros, particularly in the multimedia sector. Fedora frankly reigns supreme in some areas because of organizations like ccrma. You can of course enable the Debian repos to get a lot of other software, but I had way too many packages that the system refused to install because of clashes. I don't want to fight it.
I could keep going, but don't really want to.
> The point of Ubuntu is that you don't *have to* use a compiler for anything.
A large proportion of the software I needed on a daily basis when I tried installing Ubuntu I had to compile, because either they had no package available or the packages in the repo clashed with those already on the system.
> It saves disk space and reduces potential security holes
It might save disk space but a compiler is not a security risk. Taking a proactive stance on what is installed on your system increases security, unless you just do it badly.
> Ubuntu follows the same minimalistic approach to everything.
I develop for Puppy and Grafpup Linux. Ubuntu is a humongous terd in comparison. There is nothing minimalistic about a Gnome desktop, and Ubuntu's take on it is actually slower than other's I've used. I'm sorry, but even Fluxbuntu is laughably bloated for what it claims to be.
> Fluxbox, ICEwm, twenty different IRC clients, etc aren't installed by default
I just want one lightweight WM, not twenty. If I want to install the system on a 500mhz machine and don't know what I'm doing, I then have to wait forever for the Gnome desktop to come up before I can apt-get anything. It takes several minutes on some hardware for even gdm to materialize. Even better might if the grub prompt offered a text mode login option.
Really my main point was that the default system configuration is so far from something I can use, it's just too much work for me to want to use Ubuntu. By comparison, if I install Slackware or even FreeBSD I can have exactly the system I want almost on the first bootup after the installation is finished.
And yes, I have done things the Debian way also. It also is much easier to configure IMHO.
There are a few different levels of configurability here. New users and those not interested in computers usually want a simple gui to do things like set up their wireless card. Better still if it gets automatically detected. Ubuntu caters to those users by providing that kind of experience. Then there are systems which inherently offer you choice on everything, like Gentoo or one of the BSD's. Ubuntu just can't compare with that kind of flexibility, and that is the kind of configurability I was talking about.
Let me start with the installation. With Fedora, I can easily choose which packages I want to install, or at lest the package groups. Ubuntu pretty much just installs everything. As an aside, Debian proper will also let you choose just what you want, and so will Slackware.
Going a bit further I've installed several lightweight WM's on Ubuntu in the past, and then discovered that I had a fully empty menu. I would think this would put off newish users, when Debian will install a WM and fully populate the menu for you.
A lot of people are less than happy about having sudo forced down their throats too. I'm well aware that I can change Ubuntu's behavior to allow root to log in, but most new users won't know how and it is perceived as a restriction.
The last I checked Ubuntu's repos were a tiny fraction of what is available in some other distros, particularly in the multimedia sector. Fedora frankly reigns supreme in some areas because of organizations like ccrma. You can of course enable the Debian repos to get a lot of other software, but I had way too many packages that the system refused to install because of clashes. I don't want to fight it.
I could keep going, but don't really want to.
> The point of Ubuntu is that you don't *have to* use a compiler for anything.
A large proportion of the software I needed on a daily basis when I tried installing Ubuntu I had to compile, because either they had no package available or the packages in the repo clashed with those already on the system.
> It saves disk space and reduces potential security holes
It might save disk space but a compiler is not a security risk. Taking a proactive stance on what is installed on your system increases security, unless you just do it badly.
> Ubuntu follows the same minimalistic approach to everything.
I develop for Puppy and Grafpup Linux. Ubuntu is a humongous terd in comparison. There is nothing minimalistic about a Gnome desktop, and Ubuntu's take on it is actually slower than other's I've used. I'm sorry, but even Fluxbuntu is laughably bloated for what it claims to be.
> Fluxbox, ICEwm, twenty different IRC clients, etc aren't installed by default
I just want one lightweight WM, not twenty. If I want to install the system on a 500mhz machine and don't know what I'm doing, I then have to wait forever for the Gnome desktop to come up before I can apt-get anything. It takes several minutes on some hardware for even gdm to materialize. Even better might if the grub prompt offered a text mode login option.
Really my main point was that the default system configuration is so far from something I can use, it's just too much work for me to want to use Ubuntu. By comparison, if I install Slackware or even FreeBSD I can have exactly the system I want almost on the first bootup after the installation is finished.
And yes, I have done things the Debian way also. It also is much easier to configure IMHO.
There are a few different levels of configurability here. New users and those not interested in computers usually want a simple gui to do things like set up their wireless card. Better still if it gets automatically detected. Ubuntu caters to those users by providing that kind of experience. Then there are systems which inherently offer you choice on everything, like Gentoo or one of the BSD's. Ubuntu just can't compare with that kind of flexibility, and that is the kind of configurability I was talking about.
Comment from:
Mr. Pink [Visitor]
Reality evades Windows haters.
Comment from:
Ned [Visitor]
Hi Pete,
just wanted to tell you that I really enjoyed your post - and how!!
It is so great that somone, who *is* engaged, does not take things so seriously - sincere, yes, but not serious.
Regarding your subject: as simple non-tech user after much - much! - experimentation I've just resigned myself to dual-booting Lin/Win. What I can't do in the one, I do in the other; and if the balance shifts, I'll follow. Can't invest much more energy than that - want to do some more things with the Computer than just trying to understand how it works.
just wanted to tell you that I really enjoyed your post - and how!!
It is so great that somone, who *is* engaged, does not take things so seriously - sincere, yes, but not serious.
Regarding your subject: as simple non-tech user after much - much! - experimentation I've just resigned myself to dual-booting Lin/Win. What I can't do in the one, I do in the other; and if the balance shifts, I'll follow. Can't invest much more energy than that - want to do some more things with the Computer than just trying to understand how it works.
Comment from:
realist2 [Visitor]
Ubuntu is Microfish's attempt to control the Linux movement, send it over a cliff, and give Linux a bad name. For example, bloat (Microfish trademark); problems recognizing standard inboard video (Dell Optiplex recognized by Damn Small Linux and others); extreme difficulty removing for the hard drive (another Microfish trademark); Absence of popular, excellent browsers (Opera). THINK: who has the clout in the media to get press coverage? Answer Microfish, which controls media with advertising revenue. This creates the seeming "popularity" of Ubuntu. Don't many things about this distro look fishy -- starting with there being no reason for it's seeming popularity. The "popularity" is manufactured by Microfish to steer people into trying a version of "Linux" that will give them trouble and thereby give them a bad impression of Linux. This is how the big bullies "compete," by trying to give the competition a bad name.
In short, Ubuntu is a Microfish creation.
In short, Ubuntu is a Microfish creation.
Comment from:
mike [Visitor]
that all makes perfect sense now if i could just get some real direcion and have something work i might not get so dam frustrated, why nobody else bothers to make that point i am not sure
Comment from:
chucky [Visitor]
· http://www.pete-is-still-a-blithering-retard.com
I know I haven't bothered replying to your crap in a while. For the most part, it's not worth the time it takes to reply. And just for the record, this is no different.
Ubuntu is based on Debian, one of the oldest Linux distros. Debian is Linux. Ubuntu is Linux. So are Kubuntu and Xubuntu and any other Linux-based projects branching from Ubuntu. Ubuntu is free as in beer and as in freedom (save for a driver issue, but they don't install proprietary drivers by default and they've announced they're removing them altogether from future releases).
Ubuntu isn't Windows. It may attract a lot of Windows users for lots of different reasons -- everything from "automagic" configuration to fresher repositories than Debian to friendly and helpful community forums, things which also appeal to longtime Linux users -- but it's never going to be Windows. Because it's Linux.
Do I personally like Ubuntu? Not particularly. I'm definitely not a fan of GNOME. I used Kubuntu for the better part of six months, and it was fine. I just don't live on the bleeding edge (I still own and use hardware that's probably older than you, Pencilneck Pete) and I don't require resource-heavy graphics and eyecandy to get me through the day, so Kubuntu was a little too "polished" (bloated) for my tastes.
I'm not going to criticize others for choosing one distribution over another for whatever reason. I'm not going to criticize distributions for doing things in different ways, even when they try to do it like a different OS. They're still Linux. They're not weird, they're not dumb, they're not wrong. They just try to accomplish the same thing in different ways. Ubuntu is no different, just an evolution of a binary-based distro with a goal of making installation and running a system (home, office, server) as painless as possible.
Every person -- every SYSTEM -- is unique and one of the great things about OSS (and screw your affinity for the F part of it -- I want libre, real freedom, over free downloads) is that there's plenty of choice. I think choice is good. Too bad you don't.
Ubuntu doesn't appeal much to the Slackware crowd. Slackware doesn't appeal to the Gentoo crowd. Gentoo doesn't appeal to the Debian crowd. Yet we're all Linux, dipsh*t.
Shame on you for harping on all the choices we have today and for impugning the choices others make. You go piddle around with an unfinished POS like ReactOS if you think a Windows environment is worthy of being repeated under a different license; it's not just the license that ever bothered me. I'm just glad more people are using Linux regardless of which distro, whether they compile everything from source or use binaries, whether they prefer GUIs or command lines, or if they run their whole lives from eMacs. Those Ubuntu users seem pretty happy even over the misplaced, smug rantings of poseurs like you.
Ubuntu is based on Debian, one of the oldest Linux distros. Debian is Linux. Ubuntu is Linux. So are Kubuntu and Xubuntu and any other Linux-based projects branching from Ubuntu. Ubuntu is free as in beer and as in freedom (save for a driver issue, but they don't install proprietary drivers by default and they've announced they're removing them altogether from future releases).
Ubuntu isn't Windows. It may attract a lot of Windows users for lots of different reasons -- everything from "automagic" configuration to fresher repositories than Debian to friendly and helpful community forums, things which also appeal to longtime Linux users -- but it's never going to be Windows. Because it's Linux.
Do I personally like Ubuntu? Not particularly. I'm definitely not a fan of GNOME. I used Kubuntu for the better part of six months, and it was fine. I just don't live on the bleeding edge (I still own and use hardware that's probably older than you, Pencilneck Pete) and I don't require resource-heavy graphics and eyecandy to get me through the day, so Kubuntu was a little too "polished" (bloated) for my tastes.
I'm not going to criticize others for choosing one distribution over another for whatever reason. I'm not going to criticize distributions for doing things in different ways, even when they try to do it like a different OS. They're still Linux. They're not weird, they're not dumb, they're not wrong. They just try to accomplish the same thing in different ways. Ubuntu is no different, just an evolution of a binary-based distro with a goal of making installation and running a system (home, office, server) as painless as possible.
Every person -- every SYSTEM -- is unique and one of the great things about OSS (and screw your affinity for the F part of it -- I want libre, real freedom, over free downloads) is that there's plenty of choice. I think choice is good. Too bad you don't.
Ubuntu doesn't appeal much to the Slackware crowd. Slackware doesn't appeal to the Gentoo crowd. Gentoo doesn't appeal to the Debian crowd. Yet we're all Linux, dipsh*t.
Shame on you for harping on all the choices we have today and for impugning the choices others make. You go piddle around with an unfinished POS like ReactOS if you think a Windows environment is worthy of being repeated under a different license; it's not just the license that ever bothered me. I'm just glad more people are using Linux regardless of which distro, whether they compile everything from source or use binaries, whether they prefer GUIs or command lines, or if they run their whole lives from eMacs. Those Ubuntu users seem pretty happy even over the misplaced, smug rantings of poseurs like you.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
Chucky?!?!?
Well, I'll be dad-burned! You're all grown up! You... spell and use correct grammar now! And sound like you actually know your Linux.
You had me fooled. For a minute I thought you were devnet, my *other* regular flamer.
Happy April Fool's Day!
Well, I'll be dad-burned! You're all grown up! You... spell and use correct grammar now! And sound like you actually know your Linux.
You had me fooled. For a minute I thought you were devnet, my *other* regular flamer.
Happy April Fool's Day!
Comment from:
chucky [Visitor]
· http://www.pete-is-still-a-blithering-retard.com
I've always spelled correctly and used proper grammar, Poseur Pete. It's not flaming, it's the truth.
Comment from:
MotherOfTheBride [Visitor]
PETE, YOU'VE BEEN ATTACKED BY "MICROSHAFT SHILLS" [TM].
Congratulations Pete! The comments you've received from a swarm of Microshaft fakes (shills) is a testimonial to your intelligent contribution. Although you didn't say -- probably didn't think -- that uBUMtu is a carefully designed Microshaft booby trap, you provided evidence that will be recognized by many who have noticed many peculiarities of uBUMtu.
As we learned some time ago from ShillTown, Microshaft has hundreds of employees who monitor ALL websites, newsgroups, mail lists, blogs, etc for any mention of Microshaft products, or any competitors, or any of Microshaft's fake "competitors" such as uBUMtu. These shills are well-trained, and will reply to blogs, etc. in order to confuse, diffuse, and abuse. To monitor the Internet with trained armies of info warriors is not difficult for companies with billions of dollars.
Here are *some* of the clues that you have been attacked by Microshaft shills:
Clue 1 - NUMBER AND LENGTH OF COMMENTS - Your gut feeling was correct, Pete. There are more comments here than one would expect regarding an technical Linux post. A common info war technique is to bury useful comments in a thread that becomes long and hard to follow. Notice the *length* of some of the useless and off-topic comments. Also an info war *team* works together to shift the topic away from the worrisome point, using standard good-guy, dumb-guy, smart-guy, nasty-guy roles.
Clue 2 - REALITY2's COMMENT that uBUMtu is a known Microshaft fake Linux, complete with booby traps. I'll bet he didn't read this in any magazine, blog, etc that accepts advertising from Microshaft.
Clue 2 - FALSE INFO INSERTED IN COMMENTS - For example that uBUMtu is easy for Windows users to switch to, that it is "popular." (It's a nice touch that the shills will acknowlege some *trivial* objections, such as the color of the desktop.) This is another part of the shills' job to protect uBUMtu by giving (and repeating) false information.
All together now -- uBUMtu IS A MICROSHAFT FAKE LINUX DISTRO, and Microshaft can get their media stooges to promote it, and the purpose is to insure that people who try to escape from Windows will have a bad experience with what they *think* is Linux. We've past the "information age," and we're now in the "disinformation age," so we might as well get used to it.
Notice that honest Linux users who have tried 5-10 different distros can't understand why uBUMtu is so "popular." Simple. uBUMtu's "popularity" has been bought by Microshaft, who pays/threatens media outlets and controls them with advertising dollars.
Clue 3 - TIMING OF COMMENTS - Note how quickly the attacks appeared after your post -- just hours later -- and soon after any good comment. This is where the extensive Microshaft info war response system comes into play. The timing of multiple comments is a giveaway in this case. (Chucky's gonna get fired for his mistake.)
Clue 4 - NEEDLESS INSULTS AND ARGUMENTS - A typical info war tactic is for shills to make insults and emotional appeals in an attempt to derail a thoughtful discussion. For example, Pete, you posted something interesting, useful, thoughtful. Yet you have "commentors" who say you are "slandering" uBUMtu, which is an emotionally-laden term, and not true at all. They even got you to patiently restate your point. But they still "don't get it." They will refuse to "get it", because their job is to shift the focus of discussion and bury the topic. How do you like the performance of the the guy who comments that he doesn't want to bother commenting, but then goes on an on and on with needless falsehoods and insults?
Clue 5 - CHANGING THE SUBJECT - The Microshaft shills have tried to change the subject to whether or not uBUMtu is a good distro -- not Pete's topic at all.
Note further that the shills talk about "ReactOS vs uBUMtu," but don't even mention any *real* alternatives. There are 150 distos of Linux, but the shills don't mention that you could start at distrowatch.com, (which is not even a comprehensive) and read the comments and reviews, then download distros or buy for $5, and try them out. The shills don't want to help someone to weigh the advantages of this or that Linux distro.
So Pete, thanks for your excellent post. Unfortunately for you, you had such a useful insight that it appeared on the radar of the Microshaft info war machine and you were attacked by a swarm of "Microshaft Shills"[TM].
Congratulations Pete! The comments you've received from a swarm of Microshaft fakes (shills) is a testimonial to your intelligent contribution. Although you didn't say -- probably didn't think -- that uBUMtu is a carefully designed Microshaft booby trap, you provided evidence that will be recognized by many who have noticed many peculiarities of uBUMtu.
As we learned some time ago from ShillTown, Microshaft has hundreds of employees who monitor ALL websites, newsgroups, mail lists, blogs, etc for any mention of Microshaft products, or any competitors, or any of Microshaft's fake "competitors" such as uBUMtu. These shills are well-trained, and will reply to blogs, etc. in order to confuse, diffuse, and abuse. To monitor the Internet with trained armies of info warriors is not difficult for companies with billions of dollars.
Here are *some* of the clues that you have been attacked by Microshaft shills:
Clue 1 - NUMBER AND LENGTH OF COMMENTS - Your gut feeling was correct, Pete. There are more comments here than one would expect regarding an technical Linux post. A common info war technique is to bury useful comments in a thread that becomes long and hard to follow. Notice the *length* of some of the useless and off-topic comments. Also an info war *team* works together to shift the topic away from the worrisome point, using standard good-guy, dumb-guy, smart-guy, nasty-guy roles.
Clue 2 - REALITY2's COMMENT that uBUMtu is a known Microshaft fake Linux, complete with booby traps. I'll bet he didn't read this in any magazine, blog, etc that accepts advertising from Microshaft.
Clue 2 - FALSE INFO INSERTED IN COMMENTS - For example that uBUMtu is easy for Windows users to switch to, that it is "popular." (It's a nice touch that the shills will acknowlege some *trivial* objections, such as the color of the desktop.) This is another part of the shills' job to protect uBUMtu by giving (and repeating) false information.
All together now -- uBUMtu IS A MICROSHAFT FAKE LINUX DISTRO, and Microshaft can get their media stooges to promote it, and the purpose is to insure that people who try to escape from Windows will have a bad experience with what they *think* is Linux. We've past the "information age," and we're now in the "disinformation age," so we might as well get used to it.
Notice that honest Linux users who have tried 5-10 different distros can't understand why uBUMtu is so "popular." Simple. uBUMtu's "popularity" has been bought by Microshaft, who pays/threatens media outlets and controls them with advertising dollars.
Clue 3 - TIMING OF COMMENTS - Note how quickly the attacks appeared after your post -- just hours later -- and soon after any good comment. This is where the extensive Microshaft info war response system comes into play. The timing of multiple comments is a giveaway in this case. (Chucky's gonna get fired for his mistake.)
Clue 4 - NEEDLESS INSULTS AND ARGUMENTS - A typical info war tactic is for shills to make insults and emotional appeals in an attempt to derail a thoughtful discussion. For example, Pete, you posted something interesting, useful, thoughtful. Yet you have "commentors" who say you are "slandering" uBUMtu, which is an emotionally-laden term, and not true at all. They even got you to patiently restate your point. But they still "don't get it." They will refuse to "get it", because their job is to shift the focus of discussion and bury the topic. How do you like the performance of the the guy who comments that he doesn't want to bother commenting, but then goes on an on and on with needless falsehoods and insults?
Clue 5 - CHANGING THE SUBJECT - The Microshaft shills have tried to change the subject to whether or not uBUMtu is a good distro -- not Pete's topic at all.
Note further that the shills talk about "ReactOS vs uBUMtu," but don't even mention any *real* alternatives. There are 150 distos of Linux, but the shills don't mention that you could start at distrowatch.com, (which is not even a comprehensive) and read the comments and reviews, then download distros or buy for $5, and try them out. The shills don't want to help someone to weigh the advantages of this or that Linux distro.
So Pete, thanks for your excellent post. Unfortunately for you, you had such a useful insight that it appeared on the radar of the Microshaft info war machine and you were attacked by a swarm of "Microshaft Shills"[TM].
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@MotherOfTheBride
I deleted your first attempt since it was obviously a mistake and was a duplicate of your second try. But congrats on the rant nonetheless.
If you're referring to 'chucky', he's the site mascot since before anybody else knew it existed.
Twenty-four hours is too long for April Fool's day...
I deleted your first attempt since it was obviously a mistake and was a duplicate of your second try. But congrats on the rant nonetheless.
If you're referring to 'chucky', he's the site mascot since before anybody else knew it existed.
Twenty-four hours is too long for April Fool's day...
Comment from:
chucky [Visitor]
· http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/02/01/1630225.shtml?tid=132&tid=25
Heh, Pete has to clean up after one of his inbred "fans" and I still get flamed as an agent provocateur by some old hag even after:
1. I categorically stated that I refuse to use an OS that behaves like Windows despite its "free" license (turn the lights on in your trailer so you can read what I wrote to Pete again, you toothless witch: "You [Pete] go piddle around with an unfinished POS like ReactOS if you think a Windows environment is worthy of being repeated under a different license; it's not just the license that ever bothered me" -- meaning the whole way the OS is built is defective). And I guess its availability means they're finished with the code audit now (see newsforge link under my name).
2. I cleverly and very clearly wrote, "[S]crew your affinity for the F part of [FOSS] -- I want libre, real freedom, over free downloads." That excludes MS *and* Opera, which another inbred Pete-fan extolled as an "excellent browser." It may very well be a nice browser, but so are the products coming out of Mozilla, and at least Mozilla trusts me with the code.
3. I defended a *Linux* distro against a senseless, rambling, incoherent (as usual) attack by "Penguin Pete" and some of his equally incoherent inbred fans. Pete's silly attack is all the more senseless with all the smug lip service he's paid to FOSS on this blog, but when others actually use it Pete just pisses all over himself because a distro actually has mass appeal. So now his view is "use FOSS, just not this kind." What a load of hypocritical BS.
4. I wrote, "Do I personally like Ubuntu? Not particularly." I'm neutral when it comes to distros. I have my favorite, but I periodically check others out to see what's out there and how they do things. What works for me won't work for everyone else; what works well for others definitely won't always work for me. I just don't engage in this peculiar intolerance Pete has for Ubuntu. It works for other people, and it has them using Linux.
5. I note that Pete says (Mac vs PC) he has a love/hate relationship with Novell. I don't have love for a company that would make a deal that implies (a) they may have a liability with respect to open source code MS says is theirs and (b) signs off on a statement that says Linux costs more to implement than Windows. So why is it just hate against Ubuntu when they haven't made any deals with the devil, when they've made the effort to remove proprietary drivers from their releases, when they've given away free CDs for the asking, when they've offered any developers of OpenSuSE offended by the MS deal a new home, etc.?
Face it, MotherOfTheHairyBeast (WhoHasToGetMarriedBeforeTheBabyPopsOut): I'm not the one attacking Linux users, I'm not the one attacking any Linux distro, I'm not the one attacking open source, I'm not the one endorsing closed-source software like Opera, and I'm sure as hell not the one recommending some half-assed POS open source attempt to recreate some half-assed POS closed source distro. The hypocrite Pete's doing all that. So why are you praising him for it?
1. I categorically stated that I refuse to use an OS that behaves like Windows despite its "free" license (turn the lights on in your trailer so you can read what I wrote to Pete again, you toothless witch: "You [Pete] go piddle around with an unfinished POS like ReactOS if you think a Windows environment is worthy of being repeated under a different license; it's not just the license that ever bothered me" -- meaning the whole way the OS is built is defective). And I guess its availability means they're finished with the code audit now (see newsforge link under my name).
2. I cleverly and very clearly wrote, "[S]crew your affinity for the F part of [FOSS] -- I want libre, real freedom, over free downloads." That excludes MS *and* Opera, which another inbred Pete-fan extolled as an "excellent browser." It may very well be a nice browser, but so are the products coming out of Mozilla, and at least Mozilla trusts me with the code.
3. I defended a *Linux* distro against a senseless, rambling, incoherent (as usual) attack by "Penguin Pete" and some of his equally incoherent inbred fans. Pete's silly attack is all the more senseless with all the smug lip service he's paid to FOSS on this blog, but when others actually use it Pete just pisses all over himself because a distro actually has mass appeal. So now his view is "use FOSS, just not this kind." What a load of hypocritical BS.
4. I wrote, "Do I personally like Ubuntu? Not particularly." I'm neutral when it comes to distros. I have my favorite, but I periodically check others out to see what's out there and how they do things. What works for me won't work for everyone else; what works well for others definitely won't always work for me. I just don't engage in this peculiar intolerance Pete has for Ubuntu. It works for other people, and it has them using Linux.
5. I note that Pete says (Mac vs PC) he has a love/hate relationship with Novell. I don't have love for a company that would make a deal that implies (a) they may have a liability with respect to open source code MS says is theirs and (b) signs off on a statement that says Linux costs more to implement than Windows. So why is it just hate against Ubuntu when they haven't made any deals with the devil, when they've made the effort to remove proprietary drivers from their releases, when they've given away free CDs for the asking, when they've offered any developers of OpenSuSE offended by the MS deal a new home, etc.?
Face it, MotherOfTheHairyBeast (WhoHasToGetMarriedBeforeTheBabyPopsOut): I'm not the one attacking Linux users, I'm not the one attacking any Linux distro, I'm not the one attacking open source, I'm not the one endorsing closed-source software like Opera, and I'm sure as hell not the one recommending some half-assed POS open source attempt to recreate some half-assed POS closed source distro. The hypocrite Pete's doing all that. So why are you praising him for it?
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
Let's see here.
I now have guests going after each other.
There's some wild bug running around in the database which makes comments display out of order.
And chucky, irony of ironies, is going after me for being insufficiently in support of Linux, FOSS, software freedom, et all.
There's a reason why I wanted to have comments for this blog. I'm trying to remember it.
I now have guests going after each other.
There's some wild bug running around in the database which makes comments display out of order.
And chucky, irony of ironies, is going after me for being insufficiently in support of Linux, FOSS, software freedom, et all.
There's a reason why I wanted to have comments for this blog. I'm trying to remember it.
Comment from:
chucky [Visitor]
There's some wild bug running around in the database which makes comments display out of order.
That's probably from removing the crap your inbred "fan" posted. Heh!
And chucky, irony of ironies, is going after me for being insufficiently in support of Linux, FOSS, software freedom, et all.
*You* attacked a *Linux distribution* AND *Linux users* for choosing that particular distro. You suggested that instead of the aforementioned highly-polished Linux distro which you irrationally find objectionable they instead use a POS pre-alpha quality copycat of Windows. Please answer this: If Windows sucks, why are you so gung ho for something that sucks more since it doesn't even work well yet but it has a more acceptable license? (It's not just the MS EULA that sucks, Pete. The product itself does.)
The F part should be left off the OSS part. All F means is you're freed of having to pay for it. That's fine if you're voluntarily a cheapskate prisoner of the software you choose to use, but you're no free-er using something like Opera or some of the other F-but-not-OSS code than you are using MS or Apple code. Your control over it ends as soon as you download it and accept the license.
Finally, and not to be TOO picky, it's "et al."
That's probably from removing the crap your inbred "fan" posted. Heh!
And chucky, irony of ironies, is going after me for being insufficiently in support of Linux, FOSS, software freedom, et all.
*You* attacked a *Linux distribution* AND *Linux users* for choosing that particular distro. You suggested that instead of the aforementioned highly-polished Linux distro which you irrationally find objectionable they instead use a POS pre-alpha quality copycat of Windows. Please answer this: If Windows sucks, why are you so gung ho for something that sucks more since it doesn't even work well yet but it has a more acceptable license? (It's not just the MS EULA that sucks, Pete. The product itself does.)
The F part should be left off the OSS part. All F means is you're freed of having to pay for it. That's fine if you're voluntarily a cheapskate prisoner of the software you choose to use, but you're no free-er using something like Opera or some of the other F-but-not-OSS code than you are using MS or Apple code. Your control over it ends as soon as you download it and accept the license.
Finally, and not to be TOO picky, it's "et al."
Comment from:
Nathan [Visitor]
Wow, after carefully reading Pete's posts over I have to conclude that HE DIDN'T ATTACK ANYBODY THAT I CAN TELL. I can't however make the same statement regarding Chucky. Anyone surprised or disagree? Try actually reading the posts.
Further, I can't see any evidence of any comments coming from Penguin Pete fanboys. I don't think they exist. I for one consider myself independent enough to form my own opinions about, well, everything. But there are times I happen to agree with Pete, and this was one of them.
So go ahead Chucky and attack not only Pete but anyone who happens to agree with him. I like the guy more and more every time he doesn't delete your crap. Shows a lot of integrity and confidence in what he has written.
Further, I can't see any evidence of any comments coming from Penguin Pete fanboys. I don't think they exist. I for one consider myself independent enough to form my own opinions about, well, everything. But there are times I happen to agree with Pete, and this was one of them.
So go ahead Chucky and attack not only Pete but anyone who happens to agree with him. I like the guy more and more every time he doesn't delete your crap. Shows a lot of integrity and confidence in what he has written.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
HEY, CHUCKY? I could care less what you call me, it's all in good clean fun. But, seriously, besides spam, there is one way that I do moderate, because I have to. That's when guests go after each other. I've even stepped in between other guests (in fights, amazingly, not involving you) before.
Nathan is a distro maintainer, and a damn fine one, as I've run his system and given it excellent marks. So any replies from you to Nathan get deleted, and need I remind you that it's not beyond me to block and ban you, if I have to block the whole state of Texas to do it. I can hear you thinking, I know you want to, so I'm saying to chill out now.
You've seen this story? You think I want shit like that going down here? You think I wouldn't have turned it into the police, had that been my forum, if it went that far?
Just because I support maximum freedom does not make me an uncivilized savage. Try me!
UPDATE OK, Chuck, just forget about it. I deleted you anyway because I damn felt like it. I've had so many guests complain about you, even when all you're doing is ragging on me. I tried to have a sense of humor about you, but it just isn't funny anymore; it's turning ugly, useless, and nasty. It's a waste of everybody's time.
I can do without your traffic. Good luck on your next hobby.
Nathan is a distro maintainer, and a damn fine one, as I've run his system and given it excellent marks. So any replies from you to Nathan get deleted, and need I remind you that it's not beyond me to block and ban you, if I have to block the whole state of Texas to do it. I can hear you thinking, I know you want to, so I'm saying to chill out now.
You've seen this story? You think I want shit like that going down here? You think I wouldn't have turned it into the police, had that been my forum, if it went that far?
Just because I support maximum freedom does not make me an uncivilized savage. Try me!
UPDATE OK, Chuck, just forget about it. I deleted you anyway because I damn felt like it. I've had so many guests complain about you, even when all you're doing is ragging on me. I tried to have a sense of humor about you, but it just isn't funny anymore; it's turning ugly, useless, and nasty. It's a waste of everybody's time.
I can do without your traffic. Good luck on your next hobby.
Comment from:
Manon [Visitor]
Let's try to squeeze some sense out of that one.
So, Mr Penguin, you assume that Windows users who switch to Ubuntu are looking for a free replacement for Windows. Some of them are. But most Linux users (who used to be Windows users) I know (including myself) weren't. We wanted a brand new operating system. We were prepared to learn everything from scratch (although being able to do it at a slow pace was required).
I don't myself use Ubuntu. I wasn't happy with Mandriva (my first distro), but Ubuntu's X server crashed - you can't boot in text mode, order the Alternate CD and try again in a month. So I settled for Knoppix (because of your review) and liked it. A few days ago, I was able to try running Ubuntu on my mother's laptop.
I admit it's slow (the Knoppix LiveCD ran much faster on both that laptop and my much less powerful home box) and lacks a few features. But my overall impression was 'Oh, shiny!'. It included very nice configuration tools (aka new user's paradise).
Alright, it's too simple. (Why, oh why the holy war between automatic configuration and asking everything? Isn't it obvious enough the Right Thing is to try and detect as much as possible, then ask the user 'This is what I found, is it all right?'?) But it's still an Unix. Perhaps a little watered-down.
This leaves us with the question: Why the fuck do you believe Ubuntu is aimed at Windows-for-ever users?
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Mamon:
I agree on the Holy war about automatic configurations versus manual. I'd prefer to drop every CD into a box and have it instantly know every stick of hardware, too. The only part where I wage Holy war is when I drop the CD in, it guesses what hardware it thinks I have and guesses wrong, then automatically boots into a compressed letter-box edition screen with plaid zigzag stripes, without giving me any way to fix what is wrong. That's when I have to press "Ctrl-Alt-Backspace" to kill X and then I'm forced to struggle with a console environment with no adequate console tools. In manual setups I know I'll have the tools to fix what's wrong. The day all problems with hardware detection vanish forever, I'll join the celebratory ticker-tape parade.
I believe Ubuntu is aimed at Windows-for-ever users because Windows-for-ever users are heading to Ubuntu. And because Ubuntu is recommended to Windows users. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. I didn't make up everybody's mind for them; I'm just observing after the fact and reporting the news.
I agree on the Holy war about automatic configurations versus manual. I'd prefer to drop every CD into a box and have it instantly know every stick of hardware, too. The only part where I wage Holy war is when I drop the CD in, it guesses what hardware it thinks I have and guesses wrong, then automatically boots into a compressed letter-box edition screen with plaid zigzag stripes, without giving me any way to fix what is wrong. That's when I have to press "Ctrl-Alt-Backspace" to kill X and then I'm forced to struggle with a console environment with no adequate console tools. In manual setups I know I'll have the tools to fix what's wrong. The day all problems with hardware detection vanish forever, I'll join the celebratory ticker-tape parade.
I believe Ubuntu is aimed at Windows-for-ever users because Windows-for-ever users are heading to Ubuntu. And because Ubuntu is recommended to Windows users. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. Example. I didn't make up everybody's mind for them; I'm just observing after the fact and reporting the news.
Comment from:
MotherOfTheBride [Visitor]
Pete,
Thanks for chucking Chucky. He was too obnoxious and obvious with his false accusations and abuse arriving on your blog before the pixels of your post had dried.
Frankly, if you had continued to allow Chucky to derail your topic, I would start to wonder whether YOU were part of the shill team (playing the role of the reasonable, rational stooge). Yes, in addition to Microshaft's hundreds of paid shills, they promote entire Web sites and blogs designed to derail their critics by misinforming and confusing readers.
You are still beset with shills trying to distract readers by changing the topic (for example, although you said clearly, "It doesn't make any logical sense to me why the ex-Windows users keep coming to Linux looking for a Windows substitute," they'll twist your topic and performing like typical shills (see clues above) say, "So, Mr Penguin, you assume that Windows users who switch to Ubuntu are looking for a free replacement for Windows," and go on to curse, "why the f," which is a disinformation technique designed make the victim's brain turn from rational to emotional mode.
The shills can go on forever -- and will -- because they're paid for their time -- possibly by the word, judging from the needlessly long "comments." It's great when you can "compete" with billions of dollars and no integrity.
It's kind of funny to see hundreds of fakes on the Web saying "I'm not a Microshaft shill..." Just Google "Microsoft shill" -- 44,000 hits. Yet no one says, "Yes, I admit I'm a Microshaft shill and I'm paid well to distract, confuse, and misinform readers."
Thanks for chucking Chucky. He was too obnoxious and obvious with his false accusations and abuse arriving on your blog before the pixels of your post had dried.
Frankly, if you had continued to allow Chucky to derail your topic, I would start to wonder whether YOU were part of the shill team (playing the role of the reasonable, rational stooge). Yes, in addition to Microshaft's hundreds of paid shills, they promote entire Web sites and blogs designed to derail their critics by misinforming and confusing readers.
You are still beset with shills trying to distract readers by changing the topic (for example, although you said clearly, "It doesn't make any logical sense to me why the ex-Windows users keep coming to Linux looking for a Windows substitute," they'll twist your topic and performing like typical shills (see clues above) say, "So, Mr Penguin, you assume that Windows users who switch to Ubuntu are looking for a free replacement for Windows," and go on to curse, "why the f," which is a disinformation technique designed make the victim's brain turn from rational to emotional mode.
The shills can go on forever -- and will -- because they're paid for their time -- possibly by the word, judging from the needlessly long "comments." It's great when you can "compete" with billions of dollars and no integrity.
It's kind of funny to see hundreds of fakes on the Web saying "I'm not a Microshaft shill..." Just Google "Microsoft shill" -- 44,000 hits. Yet no one says, "Yes, I admit I'm a Microshaft shill and I'm paid well to distract, confuse, and misinform readers."
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@MotherOftheBride
Except spammers, that's the only time I've enacted discipline on the site. I prefer freedom even at an inconvenience to myself, but Chucky teaches me that no matter how sacred your principles, there will still be situations where they don't apply.
RE: shills, you're preaching to the choir. See a post from a while back. I just don't see it as constructive to yell "shill" in this thread, since it is about (whether anybody wants to believe it or not) making a place on the Linux back forty where migrants from Windows can feel welcome.
See, it isn't people's fault for running Windows; they don't know any better. Sometimes it isn't even their fault for shilling; they might be doing it subconsciously because Microsoft is part of their stock portfolio in their 401(K) plan, and if MS loses stock value they lose money, and they don't want that when they're five years from retirement, etc.
Except spammers, that's the only time I've enacted discipline on the site. I prefer freedom even at an inconvenience to myself, but Chucky teaches me that no matter how sacred your principles, there will still be situations where they don't apply.
RE: shills, you're preaching to the choir. See a post from a while back. I just don't see it as constructive to yell "shill" in this thread, since it is about (whether anybody wants to believe it or not) making a place on the Linux back forty where migrants from Windows can feel welcome.
See, it isn't people's fault for running Windows; they don't know any better. Sometimes it isn't even their fault for shilling; they might be doing it subconsciously because Microsoft is part of their stock portfolio in their 401(K) plan, and if MS loses stock value they lose money, and they don't want that when they're five years from retirement, etc.
Comment from:
Manon [Visitor]
MotherOfTheBride: I might be a Microsoft shill without knowing it, but I'm sure I'm not paid. Maybe I haven't understand Mr Penguin's sentence, but I thought it meant: "Windows users come to Linux looking for a Windows substitute, even though it doesn't make sense to me.", and my question (sorry for cursing - I just meant "make it clear because I don't get it at all") only makes sense then.
Mr Penguin: Your examples prove that ex-Windows users switch to Linux (and the first and the last links point to the same URL). They don't prove that these people want another Windows. Of course they want a half-way house so that they can learn Unix (or whatever) - but it needs to be more Unix-like than Windows-like.
Comment from:
FIAR [Visitor]
· http://radioactiveliberty.com/
Hmm. I find this interesting. I really guess I don't know, or care if Ubuntu is "Not Linux" or if it is. I just don't have a pony in this race.
Here's what I do know. I started trying out Linux distros about 2 months ago. I have an 8 yr old PC that ceased to function and I had to wipe the hard drive. That left me with the option of either purchasing a copy of Windows to install, or try out a version of Linux.
I asked a Geek friend of mine what he recommended, and he said Ubuntu. In spite of his reccomendation, I tried several. PCLOS, Mepis, Knoppix, and some others that I can't think of off the op of my head. I didn't like PCLOS because it seemed to "Windows-Like" in ways that were annoying.
Really, what tipped me in the direction of Ubuntu was the forums and availability of troubleshooting information. Really. It's just that simple. If I felt like another distro had a better technical support structure, that's what I'd have used.
My perception may be wrong, but it's my perception. I'm perfectly willing to learn something else if I have someone to tell me what to do when I don't have any idea what they're talking about or how to do it.
Is Ubuntu really Linux. I don't know why it wouldn't be. It boots a Linux kernel. If it's not, so what. Instead of a blank hard drive, I have a working system, and so far, I like Ubuntu better than others I've tried.
Like I said, I've got no pony in this race. What I do know is that the best thing about Linux is that there are so many varieties. I see that as a GOOD thing.
Here's what I do know. I started trying out Linux distros about 2 months ago. I have an 8 yr old PC that ceased to function and I had to wipe the hard drive. That left me with the option of either purchasing a copy of Windows to install, or try out a version of Linux.
I asked a Geek friend of mine what he recommended, and he said Ubuntu. In spite of his reccomendation, I tried several. PCLOS, Mepis, Knoppix, and some others that I can't think of off the op of my head. I didn't like PCLOS because it seemed to "Windows-Like" in ways that were annoying.
Really, what tipped me in the direction of Ubuntu was the forums and availability of troubleshooting information. Really. It's just that simple. If I felt like another distro had a better technical support structure, that's what I'd have used.
My perception may be wrong, but it's my perception. I'm perfectly willing to learn something else if I have someone to tell me what to do when I don't have any idea what they're talking about or how to do it.
Is Ubuntu really Linux. I don't know why it wouldn't be. It boots a Linux kernel. If it's not, so what. Instead of a blank hard drive, I have a working system, and so far, I like Ubuntu better than others I've tried.
Like I said, I've got no pony in this race. What I do know is that the best thing about Linux is that there are so many varieties. I see that as a GOOD thing.
Comment from:
FIAR [Visitor]
· http://radioactiveliberty.com/
One more thing. I didn't find Ubuntu the least bit easy to use while making the transition. Again, it was the support forums that made the choice for me. If not for the forums, I STILL wouldn't know how to install anything that didn't come as part of the installed package.
I now know how to do a number of things, and am learning more every day, as well continuing to have the interest in learning other distros.
I now know how to do a number of things, and am learning more every day, as well continuing to have the interest in learning other distros.
Comment from:
Step [Visitor]
· http://ransomedhome.com
MotherOfThePride, you are one paranoid son-of-a-gun (or daughter, perhaps :P ). I'd hate to live in your world - sure, MS has shills, I don't for a second doubt it, but they've nowhere near the number, power, or influence you imagine. I would bet that you DON'T believe money is everything, or you wouldn't be here defending FOSS. Your philosophizing is really kind of lousy - people can make long comments, off-topic comments, or swear for a lot of other reasons than just because they're a paid shill. In fact, your posts could suspiciously look like you were a paid shill, if I had that suspicious of a mindset - you over simplify people that you disagree with, and that is a very dangerous (or at the least, very very sad for a supposedly "open-minded" FOSS advocate) practice. Not to mention your use of a stupid name for Ubuntu - that's just sad, man. Didn't we stop that back in middle school? You're seriously coming across as crazy as some of the people you rant against - at least to me.
Overall, I am sadder about Linux and its future after reading this series of posts and comments (along with some comments on the gaim developer group mailing lists). It's clear that there is still too much us/them and that Windows users are assumed to be turds and will be treated as such - this is so stupid and counterproductive that it makes me sad for the computing world in general. I guess we've got farther to go than I thought to a mature computing and networked world . . . a lot farther. :(
Overall, I am sadder about Linux and its future after reading this series of posts and comments (along with some comments on the gaim developer group mailing lists). It's clear that there is still too much us/them and that Windows users are assumed to be turds and will be treated as such - this is so stupid and counterproductive that it makes me sad for the computing world in general. I guess we've got farther to go than I thought to a mature computing and networked world . . . a lot farther. :(
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
· http://www.mcubedsw.com
@Penguin_Pete:
"The fact remains, people leaving Windows will eventually go Somewhere, and wherever that Somewhere is, will determine the next desktop revolution."
The thing is, most signs are pointing to that somewhere being the Mac. The problem most people have with Linux is the problem that many Linux users have with the software industry... commercial software. Until Linux has the likes of Office, Photoshop, iTunes etc. It just isn't going to get anywhere with users. Yes, you can go on about Open Office and GIMP and media players on Linux and such, but the fact is that these aren't Office, Photoshop or iTunes, which is what users want. This is not to say that they're better (though IMO the latter two are the best of breed, your opinion may differ), but that users currently use these applications.
The reason the Mac is gaining traction is not because of it being similar to Windows. In fact it is probably further from Windows than Linux. It is that it works well with Windows, you can get many of the apps you use on Windows for the Mac. You're changing the OS you're using, you don't want to be changing all the applications at the same time.
And of course you are probably asking, why buy a Mac and then buy Office and Photoshop for the Mac when you could just get a cheap PC and install Linux on it and get the software for free. Well, people like to spend money. Even I as a developer on a Mac feel more comfortable with buying shareware than using open source in many cases. The reason they like to spend money is support. What if something goes wrong with your linux PC? You don't have a support line to call or a store you can take it into and get help.
If people want Linux to become popular they need to get out of this ideology of all software being free and fully customisable. Developing software costs money. Supporting users costs money. You cannot do that effectively if you are earning no money of that software, unless you have someone backing you (this is partly why Ubuntu is becoming popular).
As for fully customisable, most people want something that just works. They couldn't care less about customising their computer. Many people deride the Mac for having a lack of choice, when that frees people up. When people are buying a copy of Vista, which copy do they buy? And for which architecture? There are about 10-12 different versions out there if you count x86 and x64 as different versions. With the Mac you'll buy one version of Leopard and that will install everything on all 4 architectures it supports. This is an example of reducing choice but improving the ease of doing something.
So in a nutshell, to become popular Linux needs to have a distro that is less customisable (with good defaults) and costs money (or at least has good free telephone and/or email support). This goes completely against what many Linux users believe, but it is the reason people are moving to the Mac more than to Linux
"The fact remains, people leaving Windows will eventually go Somewhere, and wherever that Somewhere is, will determine the next desktop revolution."
The thing is, most signs are pointing to that somewhere being the Mac. The problem most people have with Linux is the problem that many Linux users have with the software industry... commercial software. Until Linux has the likes of Office, Photoshop, iTunes etc. It just isn't going to get anywhere with users. Yes, you can go on about Open Office and GIMP and media players on Linux and such, but the fact is that these aren't Office, Photoshop or iTunes, which is what users want. This is not to say that they're better (though IMO the latter two are the best of breed, your opinion may differ), but that users currently use these applications.
The reason the Mac is gaining traction is not because of it being similar to Windows. In fact it is probably further from Windows than Linux. It is that it works well with Windows, you can get many of the apps you use on Windows for the Mac. You're changing the OS you're using, you don't want to be changing all the applications at the same time.
And of course you are probably asking, why buy a Mac and then buy Office and Photoshop for the Mac when you could just get a cheap PC and install Linux on it and get the software for free. Well, people like to spend money. Even I as a developer on a Mac feel more comfortable with buying shareware than using open source in many cases. The reason they like to spend money is support. What if something goes wrong with your linux PC? You don't have a support line to call or a store you can take it into and get help.
If people want Linux to become popular they need to get out of this ideology of all software being free and fully customisable. Developing software costs money. Supporting users costs money. You cannot do that effectively if you are earning no money of that software, unless you have someone backing you (this is partly why Ubuntu is becoming popular).
As for fully customisable, most people want something that just works. They couldn't care less about customising their computer. Many people deride the Mac for having a lack of choice, when that frees people up. When people are buying a copy of Vista, which copy do they buy? And for which architecture? There are about 10-12 different versions out there if you count x86 and x64 as different versions. With the Mac you'll buy one version of Leopard and that will install everything on all 4 architectures it supports. This is an example of reducing choice but improving the ease of doing something.
So in a nutshell, to become popular Linux needs to have a distro that is less customisable (with good defaults) and costs money (or at least has good free telephone and/or email support). This goes completely against what many Linux users believe, but it is the reason people are moving to the Mac more than to Linux
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@ Martin Pilkington
Good Moses, what a steaming pile you left here. I had to get the extra-wide shovel to clean it up.
(a) Drop the Mac vs Linux guff. We're on the same side. I cheer on ALL open source, including OS X (as in Tiger) and Darwin (which, mark my words, will be revived).
(b) "The reason the Mac is gaining traction is not because of it being similar to Windows."
- you forgot to wave a magic wand and make the "look and feel" lawsuit disappear from history.
(c) "Even I as a developer on a Mac..."
- so you feel your job is in danger. EVERY SINGLE TIME we invent something new, throughout history, we have people like you in a panic about their job. The reality is, you'll get a new job. The entire Internet is "open source", every web page (that Google can index, anyway) is viewable for free, and web developers still get paid money, don't they?
(d) "You cannot do that effectively if you are earning no money of that software"
- Better ring up Google, Yahoo, Red Hat, Novell, and Xandros and tell them "You know that income you have? Martin says it doesn't exist!"
(e) "...is the reason people are moving to the Mac more than to Linux"
- Even if you have figures to back this up, so what? If the Windows refuges head for Mac instead of Linux, good for you. Enjoy putting up with the 500,000 flames on Mac forums because Mac doesn't work just like WinXP (remember, Mac is less similar to Windows than Linux is! You said so yourself!). You'll just have the same problem we do now, and you'll have to answer it with your own kind of Ubuntu.
Good Moses, what a steaming pile you left here. I had to get the extra-wide shovel to clean it up.
(a) Drop the Mac vs Linux guff. We're on the same side. I cheer on ALL open source, including OS X (as in Tiger) and Darwin (which, mark my words, will be revived).
(b) "The reason the Mac is gaining traction is not because of it being similar to Windows."
- you forgot to wave a magic wand and make the "look and feel" lawsuit disappear from history.
(c) "Even I as a developer on a Mac..."
- so you feel your job is in danger. EVERY SINGLE TIME we invent something new, throughout history, we have people like you in a panic about their job. The reality is, you'll get a new job. The entire Internet is "open source", every web page (that Google can index, anyway) is viewable for free, and web developers still get paid money, don't they?
(d) "You cannot do that effectively if you are earning no money of that software"
- Better ring up Google, Yahoo, Red Hat, Novell, and Xandros and tell them "You know that income you have? Martin says it doesn't exist!"
(e) "...is the reason people are moving to the Mac more than to Linux"
- Even if you have figures to back this up, so what? If the Windows refuges head for Mac instead of Linux, good for you. Enjoy putting up with the 500,000 flames on Mac forums because Mac doesn't work just like WinXP (remember, Mac is less similar to Windows than Linux is! You said so yourself!). You'll just have the same problem we do now, and you'll have to answer it with your own kind of Ubuntu.
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
· http://www.mcubedsw.com
a) I'd say we're on the same side on certain things but not on others. For example, I probably couldn't port my software to Linux and sell it. Not a criticism, just an observation of the different cultures.
b) The look and feel was because they were using a GUI, not because they were doing an exact copy of the Mac. Also note that this law suit was first filed in 1988. We're now in 2007. OS X and Windows don't work the same way. There is no start menu on the Mac, there is a single menu bar on the Mac, Mac applications (for the most part) stay open when you close the last window etc. Yes some distro's of Linux don't work very much like Windows, but your point was that some do, I was simply pointing out that there is one version of OS X and it doesn't work like Windows.
c) Did I say I was worried about my job? I develop software and sell it. I worry a little when I get a competitor, but then I go out to beat that competitor and make a better product. If someone released open source competitors to my applications then I'd just have to compete with them, but just because there's an open source competitor wouldn't mean that people would flock to it. In almost every case where there's an open source competitor to a commercial application, the commercial application still gets sales.
As for the web being open source, that's a bit of a lie. If I write a CMS for a company in PHP then nobody who doesn't have to the webserver can see that source. For example, you can't go to my website and see what PHP I use on each page. The web is open source as far as browsers have view source windows.
d) Google and Yahoo make money from advertising and use open source more than they develop it, Red Hat and Novell both sell support. These companies are selling services. I'm comparing purely software companies. For example, I, as a single developer of several products, could not survive on Linux. Where would I earn my wage? Open Source doesn't allow for small development companies making a few applications to be as successful.
e) http://pilky.mcubedsw.com/index.php?/site/comments/42/
I did an in depth analysis of the statistics from net applications, which are some of the closest stats we have available for seeing userbase sizes. Between March 05 and March 07 the Mac's user share rose about 2.7%. In the same time period Linux rose by about 0.3%. Of course the figures may not be completely accurate but the trends are obvious.
As for flames on Mac forums because the Mac doesn't work like XP, I don't really seem them. Some people complain and then move back to Windows. Others take the time to stop thinking like they're trying to use a Windows machine and start thinking like they're using a Mac. The fact is that many people of tired of using Windows. They don't want a free version of Windows, they want something that isn't Windows. The Mac allows them to have something that isn't Windows while having the commercial apps they're familiar with, which is the point I'm trying to make. The Linux community needs to realise that commercial software isn't the spawn of satan. When this happens is when we'll finally see the year of Linux on the desktop.
b) The look and feel was because they were using a GUI, not because they were doing an exact copy of the Mac. Also note that this law suit was first filed in 1988. We're now in 2007. OS X and Windows don't work the same way. There is no start menu on the Mac, there is a single menu bar on the Mac, Mac applications (for the most part) stay open when you close the last window etc. Yes some distro's of Linux don't work very much like Windows, but your point was that some do, I was simply pointing out that there is one version of OS X and it doesn't work like Windows.
c) Did I say I was worried about my job? I develop software and sell it. I worry a little when I get a competitor, but then I go out to beat that competitor and make a better product. If someone released open source competitors to my applications then I'd just have to compete with them, but just because there's an open source competitor wouldn't mean that people would flock to it. In almost every case where there's an open source competitor to a commercial application, the commercial application still gets sales.
As for the web being open source, that's a bit of a lie. If I write a CMS for a company in PHP then nobody who doesn't have to the webserver can see that source. For example, you can't go to my website and see what PHP I use on each page. The web is open source as far as browsers have view source windows.
d) Google and Yahoo make money from advertising and use open source more than they develop it, Red Hat and Novell both sell support. These companies are selling services. I'm comparing purely software companies. For example, I, as a single developer of several products, could not survive on Linux. Where would I earn my wage? Open Source doesn't allow for small development companies making a few applications to be as successful.
e) http://pilky.mcubedsw.com/index.php?/site/comments/42/
I did an in depth analysis of the statistics from net applications, which are some of the closest stats we have available for seeing userbase sizes. Between March 05 and March 07 the Mac's user share rose about 2.7%. In the same time period Linux rose by about 0.3%. Of course the figures may not be completely accurate but the trends are obvious.
As for flames on Mac forums because the Mac doesn't work like XP, I don't really seem them. Some people complain and then move back to Windows. Others take the time to stop thinking like they're trying to use a Windows machine and start thinking like they're using a Mac. The fact is that many people of tired of using Windows. They don't want a free version of Windows, they want something that isn't Windows. The Mac allows them to have something that isn't Windows while having the commercial apps they're familiar with, which is the point I'm trying to make. The Linux community needs to realise that commercial software isn't the spawn of satan. When this happens is when we'll finally see the year of Linux on the desktop.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Martin Pilkington:
"Where would I earn my wage?"
See this article. Pick any company mentioned in it. Apply with one.
Should be no problem for somebody who worries a little when they get a competitor, but then they go out to beat that competitor and make a better product.
"Where would I earn my wage?"
See this article. Pick any company mentioned in it. Apply with one.
Should be no problem for somebody who worries a little when they get a competitor, but then they go out to beat that competitor and make a better product.
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
· http://www.mcubedsw.com
That just proves the point that you need to be with a fairly sizeable company to make money developing open source software. If you look atMacSanta you will see a cross section of the Mac development community. The biggest company on there is probably Omni Group who have 24 employees including support, management and marketing. Then you have the one man shops like Flying Meat. One guy writing 3 apps, supporting them, doing his website, marketing them etc. It is these companies that just aren't viable on Linux. Looking at the companies you listed I haven't seen one that lists all their employees on their website.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Martin Pilkington
So, you want me to shut down all of technology freedom for the entire human race, just for the comfort and job safety of you and your two co-workers. Who cannot be bothered to apply to a new job elsewhere nor realize that a three-person tech startup isn't a fool-proof path to success in the first place. Despite the fact that you practically doom the human race to extinction by keeping technology sealed for your profit. Because it's Linux's fault for you not making money, rather than your own fault for hanging around all day and night trolling blogs devoted to other systems when you could be working.
Yes, sir. Right away, sir.
You know, I was going to point out that apps like games might even find a proprietary market on Linux; Linux users go buy commercial games and run them in Cedega and Wine. But now that I've talked through it with you, by God, you have CONVINCED me that commercial software is the spawn of Satan.
So, you want me to shut down all of technology freedom for the entire human race, just for the comfort and job safety of you and your two co-workers. Who cannot be bothered to apply to a new job elsewhere nor realize that a three-person tech startup isn't a fool-proof path to success in the first place. Despite the fact that you practically doom the human race to extinction by keeping technology sealed for your profit. Because it's Linux's fault for you not making money, rather than your own fault for hanging around all day and night trolling blogs devoted to other systems when you could be working.
Yes, sir. Right away, sir.
You know, I was going to point out that apps like games might even find a proprietary market on Linux; Linux users go buy commercial games and run them in Cedega and Wine. But now that I've talked through it with you, by God, you have CONVINCED me that commercial software is the spawn of Satan.
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
· http://www.mcubedsw.com
Quite the strawman you have there. You're acting like I said we should close all source code because OSS will take my job away from me. I'm not Microsoft, I like OSS (though I'm not particularly fond of GPL, I'm more an MIT/BSD guy). I use open source components in my applications and I'm planning to open source parts of my code.
As for these other two people for this three man start up, what exactly are you on about? I'm starting out again with the Mac development business, though I'm at uni so I can slowly grow the business. The guy running Flying Meat is making enough money to live off and Omni are making enough money to support 24 people and their own premises. If you're committed and have a good idea then it isn't hard to do well on the Mac. The only real capital you need to spend is the cost of a Mac and of web space. Once you have your app set up a paypal account and you're ready to go.
I'm also not saying Linux is a threat. In fact Linux poses absolutely no threat to my business at all. What I am saying is, people using Linux need to be more open to paying for software. Until they are then companies like Adobe and Microsoft won't even consider Linux and as such Linux just won't gain users in the numbers people are hoping.
You seem to think that because I claim Linux need commercial software in order to gain large numbers of users that I hate Open Source. My OS has an open source kernel, the two browsers I use (Safari and Camino) have open source rendering engines, one of my two IM applications (Adium) is open source. My FTP client (Cyberduck) is open source. I use an open source app for viewing Apple developer documents (AppKiDo). I have an open source virtual desktop app (Desktop Manager). As I previously state I'm using open source in my applications (Sparkle for updates, some classes for syntax colouring in one of my apps). My websites are written using PHP running on Linux servers with Apache. I am in no way against Open Source.
What I am trying to say is that it's near impossible to develop for Linux and to make money unless you work for a large corporation. You feel very strongly against close source software, I feel very strongly about working for a corporation, I prefer the freedom of working for myself, it allows me to develop what I want, how I want it and to get closer to the user base who I'm selling to. You can say why don't I go and get a job working for one of those companies, I can easily say why don't you buy a copy of Vista to run on your computer. You may think they're completely different scenarios, but they both end up being things we wouldn't do for the same reason, we like our freedom
As for these other two people for this three man start up, what exactly are you on about? I'm starting out again with the Mac development business, though I'm at uni so I can slowly grow the business. The guy running Flying Meat is making enough money to live off and Omni are making enough money to support 24 people and their own premises. If you're committed and have a good idea then it isn't hard to do well on the Mac. The only real capital you need to spend is the cost of a Mac and of web space. Once you have your app set up a paypal account and you're ready to go.
I'm also not saying Linux is a threat. In fact Linux poses absolutely no threat to my business at all. What I am saying is, people using Linux need to be more open to paying for software. Until they are then companies like Adobe and Microsoft won't even consider Linux and as such Linux just won't gain users in the numbers people are hoping.
You seem to think that because I claim Linux need commercial software in order to gain large numbers of users that I hate Open Source. My OS has an open source kernel, the two browsers I use (Safari and Camino) have open source rendering engines, one of my two IM applications (Adium) is open source. My FTP client (Cyberduck) is open source. I use an open source app for viewing Apple developer documents (AppKiDo). I have an open source virtual desktop app (Desktop Manager). As I previously state I'm using open source in my applications (Sparkle for updates, some classes for syntax colouring in one of my apps). My websites are written using PHP running on Linux servers with Apache. I am in no way against Open Source.
What I am trying to say is that it's near impossible to develop for Linux and to make money unless you work for a large corporation. You feel very strongly against close source software, I feel very strongly about working for a corporation, I prefer the freedom of working for myself, it allows me to develop what I want, how I want it and to get closer to the user base who I'm selling to. You can say why don't I go and get a job working for one of those companies, I can easily say why don't you buy a copy of Vista to run on your computer. You may think they're completely different scenarios, but they both end up being things we wouldn't do for the same reason, we like our freedom
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
What you're saying here is you aren't saying squat, you're here to argue and you're so determined to continue that you're contradicting yourself.
Now it's more like the question is, how would you work WITHOUT open source software? Two posts ago, open source was the hippy communists leeching off your Uhmercan Capitalism. In fact, I don't believe I'm talking to a Mac user at all. Apple doesn't hire asstroturfers.
Now it's more like the question is, how would you work WITHOUT open source software? Two posts ago, open source was the hippy communists leeching off your Uhmercan Capitalism. In fact, I don't believe I'm talking to a Mac user at all. Apple doesn't hire asstroturfers.
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
· http://www.mcubedsw.com
Lol, trust me, I've had LOTS of experience of people ignoring the bulk of my posts and picking out the few bits that allow them to criticise what they make my argument out to be. The only thing that I'm not consistent on is what part of my argument I talk about in various posts. I basically have two points here that have not changed:
1. For linux to make it as a desktop OS it needs to be more open to the idea of commercial apps.
2. It's very hard, if not near impossible for small teams of developers to survive by producing open source.
You are the one who twisted those into me being against open source. I have never at any point said that I was against open source. That is just one of the several assumptions you've made. So lets deride some of the others you made in your last post:
1. I'm English, not "Uhmercan".
2. I believe in socialism. I'm pro abortion/gay marriage/euthanasia/energy conservation/nuclear disarmament/free universal health care/state funded education etc. I don't believe in capitalism (too much power in corporations) or communism (too much loss of freedom).
3. I've been a Mac user a good long time. I started on an LC with System 6 when I was 3 (1990). I now own an iMac and a MacBook and am a paid ADC member. If I wasn't a Mac user then why would I be developing Mac software?
4. And why do you have to work for Apple to be a Mac user? As I've told you, I wouldn't want to work for a corporation, that requires you to do what your boss wants you too. I much prefer the freedom of smaller companies where everyone is working together not for each other. It allows for better products and closer contact with your customers.
1. For linux to make it as a desktop OS it needs to be more open to the idea of commercial apps.
2. It's very hard, if not near impossible for small teams of developers to survive by producing open source.
You are the one who twisted those into me being against open source. I have never at any point said that I was against open source. That is just one of the several assumptions you've made. So lets deride some of the others you made in your last post:
1. I'm English, not "Uhmercan".
2. I believe in socialism. I'm pro abortion/gay marriage/euthanasia/energy conservation/nuclear disarmament/free universal health care/state funded education etc. I don't believe in capitalism (too much power in corporations) or communism (too much loss of freedom).
3. I've been a Mac user a good long time. I started on an LC with System 6 when I was 3 (1990). I now own an iMac and a MacBook and am a paid ADC member. If I wasn't a Mac user then why would I be developing Mac software?
4. And why do you have to work for Apple to be a Mac user? As I've told you, I wouldn't want to work for a corporation, that requires you to do what your boss wants you too. I much prefer the freedom of smaller companies where everyone is working together not for each other. It allows for better products and closer contact with your customers.
Comment from:
Perlejade [Visitor]
Paying for software is OK, as long as we can afford it. The problem with "commercial" software isn't the price. It's having to trust an app we can't prove (by looking at the source code) it won't wipe our hard drive. It's having to promise we won't share an useful app with someone else (maybe the problem isn't as serious as RMS believes, but it's still an issue). It's having to rewrite the program from scratch if we need a small change. That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Martin AGAIN!!!!!
"Lol, trust me, I've had LOTS of experience of people ignoring the bulk of my posts and picking out the few bits"
-Scientists have shown that this is a common symptom of being full of bullshit. I'm ready to ignore 100% of your posts. Not to mention that getting some twenty links from my page to your company page could by why you keep going on and never shut up.
How about we let somebody else have a turn? You said your little piece about how everything in the FOSS world is wrong. Nothing original there, the usual grossly false assumptions. Now it's time to move along...
"Lol, trust me, I've had LOTS of experience of people ignoring the bulk of my posts and picking out the few bits"
-Scientists have shown that this is a common symptom of being full of bullshit. I'm ready to ignore 100% of your posts. Not to mention that getting some twenty links from my page to your company page could by why you keep going on and never shut up.
How about we let somebody else have a turn? You said your little piece about how everything in the FOSS world is wrong. Nothing original there, the usual grossly false assumptions. Now it's time to move along...
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
@penguin_pete: If you want you can remove the links, though I doubt people visiting a Linux blog would be interested in Mac software anyway. As for being full of bullshit, I stated the two points I was making very clearly. I pointed out all the assumptions you had made about me that were wrong. But you choose to comment on the first bit of my post just so you could attack me instead of attacking my argument (which in a way further proves the quoted part of my post).
I do have to ask that if you don't like people commenting on your posts, why do you allow comments?
@Perlejade: I find it a bit odd that people would be paranoid of an applications wiping their HD. Of course if you went to a dodgy site to get the software I wouldn't expect it to be good, but the majority of software out there is unlikely to cause this problem. I also doubt you'd check the source of say, every Firefox build before installing it.
As for the customisations, this again is the difference in culture. Linux (and to some extent Windows) is all about customising your system to be exactly what you want. This in turn is demonstrated in one of the business models with open source software, to write a piece of software and then try to get hired to extend and customise it. The Mac however is all about reducing choice. This is not always a bad thing. For example, if you went to Dell you have several product lines with confusing names and lots of different configurations. Go to Apple and you have 5 product lines (6 if you include the Xserve) and they fit in comparatively strict target markets (this is similar with the iPod). The key to the Mac really is sensible defaults. If you want a new feature then you contact a developer. This is pretty much the same with open source on the Mac, most people would contact the developer to get them to add something, it is often those who have come from an open source background who actually contribute code, again highlighting the different cultures. Neither way is wrong, it's just one is better for one group of people and one for another
I do have to ask that if you don't like people commenting on your posts, why do you allow comments?
@Perlejade: I find it a bit odd that people would be paranoid of an applications wiping their HD. Of course if you went to a dodgy site to get the software I wouldn't expect it to be good, but the majority of software out there is unlikely to cause this problem. I also doubt you'd check the source of say, every Firefox build before installing it.
As for the customisations, this again is the difference in culture. Linux (and to some extent Windows) is all about customising your system to be exactly what you want. This in turn is demonstrated in one of the business models with open source software, to write a piece of software and then try to get hired to extend and customise it. The Mac however is all about reducing choice. This is not always a bad thing. For example, if you went to Dell you have several product lines with confusing names and lots of different configurations. Go to Apple and you have 5 product lines (6 if you include the Xserve) and they fit in comparatively strict target markets (this is similar with the iPod). The key to the Mac really is sensible defaults. If you want a new feature then you contact a developer. This is pretty much the same with open source on the Mac, most people would contact the developer to get them to add something, it is often those who have come from an open source background who actually contribute code, again highlighting the different cultures. Neither way is wrong, it's just one is better for one group of people and one for another
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
Oh, boy, we have another chucky. Now, how long do I let this one rant before I stifle him?
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
Lol, I don't believe I'm the one ranting, you're the one who's gone on a rant at me about how I'm an anti open source capitalist. I've just been trying to make the same two points over and over, which you have not managed to argue against. You seem to think that just because I'm a commercial developer I don't like open source and that I'm threatened by it.
Now I've made my points and I've backed them up, so until you decide to try and prove them wrong I'll stop posting, it's obvious you're only a fan of free speech if it agrees with your views. And just for clarity here are those two points I've been making again:
1. For linux to make it as a desktop OS it needs to be more open to the idea of commercial apps.
2. It's very hard, if not near impossible for small teams of developers to survive by producing open source.
Now I ask you to not comment on any bit of this post, but those two points. Try to prove me wrong on them, because I feel I have a pretty strong case for both of them being true, you obvious feel otherwise.
Now I've made my points and I've backed them up, so until you decide to try and prove them wrong I'll stop posting, it's obvious you're only a fan of free speech if it agrees with your views. And just for clarity here are those two points I've been making again:
1. For linux to make it as a desktop OS it needs to be more open to the idea of commercial apps.
2. It's very hard, if not near impossible for small teams of developers to survive by producing open source.
Now I ask you to not comment on any bit of this post, but those two points. Try to prove me wrong on them, because I feel I have a pretty strong case for both of them being true, you obvious feel otherwise.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@ Martin
Here, Mr. Angry Troll, I just blogged about this page. It's my new favorite page on the Internet, because it shoots down all the anti-Linux FUD in one shot.
Including Martin Pilkington's Greatest Hits, like: "they need to get out of this ideology of all software being free and fully customizable", "Developing software costs money. Supporting users costs money.", "In fact Linux poses absolutely no threat to my business at all.", "it's near impossible to develop for Linux and to make money" and on and on and on.
PS If I ignore you from here on out, it's because you're boring me silly. Perhaps you could go yell at David A. Wheeler and every single page he links to, which ought to keep you busy for a few months...
Here, Mr. Angry Troll, I just blogged about this page. It's my new favorite page on the Internet, because it shoots down all the anti-Linux FUD in one shot.
Including Martin Pilkington's Greatest Hits, like: "they need to get out of this ideology of all software being free and fully customizable", "Developing software costs money. Supporting users costs money.", "In fact Linux poses absolutely no threat to my business at all.", "it's near impossible to develop for Linux and to make money" and on and on and on.
PS If I ignore you from here on out, it's because you're boring me silly. Perhaps you could go yell at David A. Wheeler and every single page he links to, which ought to keep you busy for a few months...
Comment from:
Martin Pilkington [Visitor]
It's nice to see you finally addressing at least some of my issues, though you still seem to have this crazy idea that I'm this anti-Linux troll. I like Linux, I want Linux to succeed. I just feel that it can't succeed in it's current state. This is not as much that the ideas of Linux are wrong, just that you sometimes have to make concessions in your beliefs in order to edge closer to what you want.
I also don't see anything that downplays some of those remarks of mine you commented. Developing software does cost money. Getting the computer to write the software on costs money, hiring the people to write software costs money, hiring the webspace for your website costs money etc. Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love it if I could release my code yet still make money off it, but unless I go and work for a corporation (which you ironically suggested before claiming I'm a capitalist) then I cannot survive. As for linux posing no threat to my business, as you stated in your first reply to me, we're both on the same side. If I was writing Windows software I'd be a bit worried (but Windows is never going to go away completely, as much as I'd like it to) but the fact is that the Mac and Linux are both gaining share from Windows.
Anyway, I've put a summary of my thoughts up on my blog. I encourage you to read through it, but read through it with a clear mind. Take any thoughts you currently have about me out of your head and read as though you don't think I'm an anti-Linux troll, which I'm not. Anyway, I shall say goodbye unless you want to talk any more. I'm sorry we seemed to have got off on the wrong foot
http://pilky.mcubedsw.com/index.php?/site/comments/48/
I also don't see anything that downplays some of those remarks of mine you commented. Developing software does cost money. Getting the computer to write the software on costs money, hiring the people to write software costs money, hiring the webspace for your website costs money etc. Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love it if I could release my code yet still make money off it, but unless I go and work for a corporation (which you ironically suggested before claiming I'm a capitalist) then I cannot survive. As for linux posing no threat to my business, as you stated in your first reply to me, we're both on the same side. If I was writing Windows software I'd be a bit worried (but Windows is never going to go away completely, as much as I'd like it to) but the fact is that the Mac and Linux are both gaining share from Windows.
Anyway, I've put a summary of my thoughts up on my blog. I encourage you to read through it, but read through it with a clear mind. Take any thoughts you currently have about me out of your head and read as though you don't think I'm an anti-Linux troll, which I'm not. Anyway, I shall say goodbye unless you want to talk any more. I'm sorry we seemed to have got off on the wrong foot
http://pilky.mcubedsw.com/index.php?/site/comments/48/
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
The hilarious part is, these people come in spouting the same tired line trying to make it sound original. "Linux will never make it on the desktop until blah blah blah". Yes, we all know what Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V does, thank you.
Since we're bandying about terms like 'strawman', I would like to introduce another logical fallacy: "begging the question". Every time we see a "Linux will never achieve world domination" argument, we are begging the question of whether Linux is determined to dominate the world in the first place.
Let's ask him. Linux? Are you here? Wait, get the CEO of Linux on the phone. No, well, how about the board of trustees. What? Hmmm... Looks like Linux isn't a corporation.
So it is drollingly stupid to treat it like one.
The fact is, Linux doesn't actually matter. BSD doesn't matter. Open Solaris doesn't matter, nor Darwin, nor Minix, nor ReactOS, nor even, ultimately, GNU itself. What matters is TECHNOLOGY FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE.
_FOR_ _THE_ _PEOPLE_. For the greater common good. And the people will have what the people choose. That's how it was before proprietary software arose as a concept, that's what it's going back to. Whether any software companies like it or not.
Bringing the Microsoft dictatorship down will doubtless bring all kinds of opportunists out of the woodwork looking to be dictator #2. But GNU,Linux, et al. are the democracy. Linux doesn't "want" to be the next dictator anymore than rocks want to be moved. Furthermore, it cannot be molded into the next dictator, not while still being Linux.
The people want liberty. And they should take it. And they should let nothing stand in their way, no matter how bloody the struggle gets. If that thought makes you nervous, Martin Pilkington, well, you're in good company.
If people like you can't make a living while the people claim their liberty, then you're in a hell of a lot of trouble, and all the head-in-the-ground denial posted to all the blogs in the world won't change it. Get a new job, or go on welfare!
Since we're bandying about terms like 'strawman', I would like to introduce another logical fallacy: "begging the question". Every time we see a "Linux will never achieve world domination" argument, we are begging the question of whether Linux is determined to dominate the world in the first place.
Let's ask him. Linux? Are you here? Wait, get the CEO of Linux on the phone. No, well, how about the board of trustees. What? Hmmm... Looks like Linux isn't a corporation.
So it is drollingly stupid to treat it like one.
The fact is, Linux doesn't actually matter. BSD doesn't matter. Open Solaris doesn't matter, nor Darwin, nor Minix, nor ReactOS, nor even, ultimately, GNU itself. What matters is TECHNOLOGY FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE.
_FOR_ _THE_ _PEOPLE_. For the greater common good. And the people will have what the people choose. That's how it was before proprietary software arose as a concept, that's what it's going back to. Whether any software companies like it or not.
Bringing the Microsoft dictatorship down will doubtless bring all kinds of opportunists out of the woodwork looking to be dictator #2. But GNU,Linux, et al. are the democracy. Linux doesn't "want" to be the next dictator anymore than rocks want to be moved. Furthermore, it cannot be molded into the next dictator, not while still being Linux.
The people want liberty. And they should take it. And they should let nothing stand in their way, no matter how bloody the struggle gets. If that thought makes you nervous, Martin Pilkington, well, you're in good company.
If people like you can't make a living while the people claim their liberty, then you're in a hell of a lot of trouble, and all the head-in-the-ground denial posted to all the blogs in the world won't change it. Get a new job, or go on welfare!
Comment from:
Perlejade [Visitor]
Sir, who are you, where is our Pete? Where is the open-minded penguin? Since when did you start accusing people of being trolls or astroturfers without a reason and ignoring their arguments? You have a hundred logical answers to Martin Pilkington and yet the one you find is 'you troll'?
Martin Pilkington:
"For linux to make it as a desktop OS it needs to be more open to the idea of commercial apps."
You've missed the point: Linux does not want to "make it as a desktop OS". It's more like: "Want freedom? Pick me. Or pick another free OS, I don't care." Making more people able to use Linux (telling them about it, providing GUIs, writing manual pages, helping them) is a good thing, provided it's still Linux (in some cases (Ubuntu's), it might not be clear if it's still Linux, but giving up freedom is without a doubt un-Linux-like). Making people use Linux is stupid; it's their own choice, good or bad for them, and Linux doesn't care (since Linux doesn't exist as a person or company).
"It's very hard, if not near impossible for small teams of developers to survive by producing open source."
I can believe that. But you'd love to release FOSS, right? Then stop trying to sell your software to people who value freedom more in the first place! Help spread the crave for freedom until a few Companies With The Big Bucks have switched to making FOSS too - voilà, a market wide open for your FOSS! I admit it'll take a long time, but it's still easier than trying to sell proprietary software to Linux users.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Perlejade
I actually got around to making some of the same arguments as you, later. But, yeah, boy have I gotten sloppy! These days, I see the agenda-written-for-Linux and go "Oh, God, not this one again!"
I think I have stopped caring somewhat about this post's comments (which will live in my memory forever as Ubuntu-gate). I've never seen anything like this thread before.
I actually got around to making some of the same arguments as you, later. But, yeah, boy have I gotten sloppy! These days, I see the agenda-written-for-Linux and go "Oh, God, not this one again!"
I think I have stopped caring somewhat about this post's comments (which will live in my memory forever as Ubuntu-gate). I've never seen anything like this thread before.
Comment from:
Preserved Killick [Visitor]
Hmmm. I've been using Linux since RH 7 as a Win95 refugee. When I left Windows I wasn't looking for a free Windows replacement, I was looking for a computer that works. So, after using a couple of RedHats, Mandrake, Fedora Core 1, Knoppix, SuSE, Mepis and Libranet (anyone remember Libranet-- it was sweet), I've landed on Ubuntu. It works. I like it, and I don't mind it if you think it's a Windows replacement. Just don't tell me what I think. For me, Ubuntu isn't a Unix replacement or a Windows replacement. It's just the computer system I use.
Comment from:
ned [Visitor]
hi pete,
right on, man!!
sometimes i really LOVE your posts ...
one more part-windows/part-linux user
right on, man!!
sometimes i really LOVE your posts ...
one more part-windows/part-linux user
Comment from:
Robert who wants real linux [Visitor]
Hello...
Iwe just read all this and found it wery intressting...!
I have ubuntu right now, with kde-desktop installed. I new in linux but I want to learn "real" linux and not some "easyversion"
So.. And now that the question "what is the best dist?" is hard anser and so.. but still.. if you would line up 3 dists that you would call real linux.
I would be very glad for that!
Debian? Slackware? Red Hat?
Please...
Want to learn REAL LINUX!!!
//Robert of Sweden
Iwe just read all this and found it wery intressting...!
I have ubuntu right now, with kde-desktop installed. I new in linux but I want to learn "real" linux and not some "easyversion"
So.. And now that the question "what is the best dist?" is hard anser and so.. but still.. if you would line up 3 dists that you would call real linux.
I would be very glad for that!
Debian? Slackware? Red Hat?
Please...
Want to learn REAL LINUX!!!
//Robert of Sweden
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Robert
Well, "What's the *real* Linux?" is another argument waiting to happen. I'll go with Debian and Slackware, and Fedora, which is based on Red Hat (but free).
But really, Ubuntu and other desktop-focused distros are fine for most purposes. Learning real Linux is a goal that needs a direction: do you want to learn system administration or programming or head for a hard-core Unix system?
There's nothing *wrong* with Ubuntu. There's nothing *wrong* with running it. It isn't like you have to flee Ubuntu because it's a sin or something.
Well, "What's the *real* Linux?" is another argument waiting to happen. I'll go with Debian and Slackware, and Fedora, which is based on Red Hat (but free).
But really, Ubuntu and other desktop-focused distros are fine for most purposes. Learning real Linux is a goal that needs a direction: do you want to learn system administration or programming or head for a hard-core Unix system?
There's nothing *wrong* with Ubuntu. There's nothing *wrong* with running it. It isn't like you have to flee Ubuntu because it's a sin or something.
Comment from:
Tom [Visitor]
Things will get better as it stops being religious and becomes focused on two cores, money and useability, with the trust of those two things. If people 'hear' about a product, and find it meets their level of cost comfort while performing the tasks they fear they could not do elsewhere and within the group dynamic they're accustomed to (keeping up with the neighbors or the job), then that's where they form a groove or a rut, like their political parties or religious following). If they don't trust an enticement will meet those comfort levels or are presented with 'zealotry', of course there's a polarization effect, a tendency not to even look at the advertisement, the product, the symbol. A Window's like replacement or a free Unix to appeal must not be a weapon, it must be the good tool that it is. It's not Windoze, its Windows, and it doesn't suit for everybody, it's not Minux or Linuts its Linux and it has its core, not to take away from Apple (not Crapple). In a world use to advertisement, some players need to use that to their advantages.
A Windows user as well as Fedora dabbler.
A Windows user as well as Fedora dabbler.
Comment from:
Mike [Visitor]
@ Penguin Pete
"Oh, boy, we have another chucky. Now, how long do I let this one rant before I stifle him? "
Ah - so this is your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you?
"Oh, boy, we have another chucky. Now, how long do I let this one rant before I stifle him? "
Ah - so this is your standard response to anyone who disagrees with you?
Comment from:
surrealdeal [Visitor]
feminist on linux:
"you need to respect me for MY ubuntu!"
Comment from:
Roger [Visitor]
One of the best aspects of the Ubuntu project, its Debian-derived distro and surrounding community is that it enables both new and established Linux users to route around bitter, envy-ridden drivel, like that in the post above.
Comment from:
Foo [Visitor]
You're completely right about people expecting Linux to be exactly like Windows being as annoying as all hell - You can't expect to switch to a system that does things differently and expect to be instantly comfortable or productive.
That's exactly the reason I remain with Ubuntu (and OS X) because I don't want to give up my familiar environment (Unix) and tools. However I don't see why I should have to put up with something that's a pig to install and use just to be "not like windows"
The reason that you perceive Ubuntu as trying to be Linux-in-Windows-drag is because it's easy to install and use. It's pathetic to suggest that by polishing the user experience it's somehow "trying to be windows".
Ubuntu is trying to be a proper operating system that does what other modern operating systems do - if you don't like modern operating systems you can still download Slackware 1.0 or I'll gladly give you a tattered boxed copy of Windows 3.11 on 8 floppies.
If Linux (and Unix in general) has a habit of looking and feeling a bit like Windows - That's no surprise, not because developers think Windows is the be-all and end-all of interfaces, but because the makers of the Motif toolkit (which both Qt and Gtk tried to ape in their infancy) chose to use Microsoft's Human Interface guidelines
...anyway I digress...
People feel frustrated and disempowered when they migrate to a new system and find that they're no-longer at the level they were, and often lash out at those who they percieve as condescending or smug about their own level of knowledge.
That sort of reaction isn't exclusive to people changing operating systems, people inherently react that way to change unless they can understand the reasons that it's happened. Think how frustrating you'd find it if TXT SPK became the common written form of English without any apparent reason.
The real problem is that people don't understand the enormity of the task before them when they set out to become comfortable with a new operating system. That's no reason to put up barriers to usability though - The reason such people gravitate to Ubuntu is because it's within the grasp of the average Windows "power-user" to install, not because it's trying to be Windows.
The sad fact is that those very people are the same group who are most likely to be frustrated by unfamiliarity. I remember flipping-out about the differences between OS X and other Unixes I'd used (NeXTstep included). I felt that they'd devalued my unix skills and turned me into a "baby" again.
Somehow I managed to get over that and still make use of OS X without blowing it away and installing Linux over the top, I'm sure some of those complaining disillusioned Windows refugees manage to overcome their initial reaction and learn to use their new environment too.
If they're not scared off by zealots like you that is...
That's exactly the reason I remain with Ubuntu (and OS X) because I don't want to give up my familiar environment (Unix) and tools. However I don't see why I should have to put up with something that's a pig to install and use just to be "not like windows"
The reason that you perceive Ubuntu as trying to be Linux-in-Windows-drag is because it's easy to install and use. It's pathetic to suggest that by polishing the user experience it's somehow "trying to be windows".
Ubuntu is trying to be a proper operating system that does what other modern operating systems do - if you don't like modern operating systems you can still download Slackware 1.0 or I'll gladly give you a tattered boxed copy of Windows 3.11 on 8 floppies.
If Linux (and Unix in general) has a habit of looking and feeling a bit like Windows - That's no surprise, not because developers think Windows is the be-all and end-all of interfaces, but because the makers of the Motif toolkit (which both Qt and Gtk tried to ape in their infancy) chose to use Microsoft's Human Interface guidelines
...anyway I digress...
People feel frustrated and disempowered when they migrate to a new system and find that they're no-longer at the level they were, and often lash out at those who they percieve as condescending or smug about their own level of knowledge.
That sort of reaction isn't exclusive to people changing operating systems, people inherently react that way to change unless they can understand the reasons that it's happened. Think how frustrating you'd find it if TXT SPK became the common written form of English without any apparent reason.
The real problem is that people don't understand the enormity of the task before them when they set out to become comfortable with a new operating system. That's no reason to put up barriers to usability though - The reason such people gravitate to Ubuntu is because it's within the grasp of the average Windows "power-user" to install, not because it's trying to be Windows.
The sad fact is that those very people are the same group who are most likely to be frustrated by unfamiliarity. I remember flipping-out about the differences between OS X and other Unixes I'd used (NeXTstep included). I felt that they'd devalued my unix skills and turned me into a "baby" again.
Somehow I managed to get over that and still make use of OS X without blowing it away and installing Linux over the top, I'm sure some of those complaining disillusioned Windows refugees manage to overcome their initial reaction and learn to use their new environment too.
If they're not scared off by zealots like you that is...
Comment from:
Captain Crunch [Visitor]
· http://localhost:80
Why worry about what operating system that people use? There are much bigger things in life to worry about. People use Windows because they don't know much about computers and how they can be adversely affected by them. That explains why 90% use Windows and 5% use Linux. Linux is designed to do serious computing and processing by people who understand what that means. As for all the Windows users out there, well there is this thing called Divine Justice which says that if you do the wrong things out of ignorance or with good intentions, you still get a bad result.
Comment from:
Lee [Visitor]
I read some other guys blog the other day and his comments were that using Ubuntu was like discovering computers all over again. This, I though, is exactly how I would define my experience. I discovered Ubuntu several months ago and it reminds me of my early years with my Atari400 and having so much to learn. I like being able to use the command line, write scripts and make my computer do things, I like the way that when I finally get something to work, I know it will continue to work. I can see the logic and how it is meant to work. I can get help from the Ubuntu communities and, in offering their help, they do not want to force me to register or pay; we share the knowledge. I really feel like I have a real computer again, a computer that I control. That separates Ubuntu from Windoze. I like it a lot! Keep up the good work all those who contribute.
Comment from:
GregE [Visitor]
Put an Ubunt machine on your desk. Put a Debian machine next to it. Change the Ubuntu theme to Blubuntu. Change the Ubuntu logo on the menu to the Gnome foot.
Stand back and see if you can tell the difference. One uses sudo and the other su, the result is the same. Ubuntu's crime in your eyes is to preconfigure a lot of the initial setup to make it simpler. This make it a Window clone?
Get real.
ps changing the Gnome menu logo is tricky, Ubuntu hides the pixmap in a series of links. I did it once to see if I could, then it got changed back in an upgrade and I did not bother again.
Stand back and see if you can tell the difference. One uses sudo and the other su, the result is the same. Ubuntu's crime in your eyes is to preconfigure a lot of the initial setup to make it simpler. This make it a Window clone?
Get real.
ps changing the Gnome menu logo is tricky, Ubuntu hides the pixmap in a series of links. I did it once to see if I could, then it got changed back in an upgrade and I did not bother again.
Comment from:
Sean [Visitor]
Windows is like a drug for most users. Once they realize that temporary euphoria comes with loads of virus/malware/spyware problems and that they are not free to do what they want they look for an alternative.
Ubuntu is a 'parodied windows' and not a 'true linux' according to you but how do you get a windows user high on the Windows Drug to migrate to Linux as an alternative...Give him the 'methadone treatment' just like for heroin addicts; ie, Ubuntu for Windows Addicts who want to move. Moreover, my experience has been that Ubuntu is great to use for all those who want to gradually and laboriously learn what Linux is!
Every Linux Distro INCLUDING UBUNTU has the Linux kernel and IS LINUX!
Ubuntu is a 'parodied windows' and not a 'true linux' according to you but how do you get a windows user high on the Windows Drug to migrate to Linux as an alternative...Give him the 'methadone treatment' just like for heroin addicts; ie, Ubuntu for Windows Addicts who want to move. Moreover, my experience has been that Ubuntu is great to use for all those who want to gradually and laboriously learn what Linux is!
Every Linux Distro INCLUDING UBUNTU has the Linux kernel and IS LINUX!
Comment from:
Sean [Visitor]
Windows is like a drug for most users. Once they realize that temporary euphoria comes with loads of virus/malware/spyware problems and that they are not free to do what they want they look for an alternative.
Ubuntu is a 'parodied windows' and not a 'true linux' according to you but how do you get a windows user high on the Windows Drug to migrate to Linux as an alternative...Give him the 'methadone treatment' just like for heroin addicts; ie, Ubuntu for Windows Addicts who want to move. Moreover, my experience has been that Ubuntu is great to use for all those who want to gradually and laboriously learn what Linux is!
Every Linux Distro INCLUDING UBUNTU has the Linux kernel and IS LINUX!
Ubuntu is a 'parodied windows' and not a 'true linux' according to you but how do you get a windows user high on the Windows Drug to migrate to Linux as an alternative...Give him the 'methadone treatment' just like for heroin addicts; ie, Ubuntu for Windows Addicts who want to move. Moreover, my experience has been that Ubuntu is great to use for all those who want to gradually and laboriously learn what Linux is!
Every Linux Distro INCLUDING UBUNTU has the Linux kernel and IS LINUX!
Comment from:
Valczir [Visitor]
I totally agree with this article. Ubuntu is not linux.
The problem here isn't that Ubuntu makes things simple, it's that Ubuntu takes away the linux user's power while it's simplifying things.
So you want good defaults - that's fine, but why can't I change things to be how I want them?
The worst thing is that I ubuntu has fallen so far from being linux that I can't fix it, anymore. If I'm going to get a friend hooked on linux, I need to be able to help with it. With ubuntu, the problem is not that I -can- change settings via a GUI, it's that I -have- to. And since when do linux users need to restart the computer to change some Xorg settings?
And for those who are saying that Ubuntu "just works", you obviously haven't tried a real linux distro. Ubuntu is the only distro I've experienced actual random crashes and degradation with. On gentoo, fedora, SuSE, debian, and a whole host of other distros I've tried, if something crashes, there was a reason for it. Such as, for example, the fact that I'm currently running KDE 4.3.61 (4.4 alpha). Also, if something major happens like a total graphical server freeze, restarting the graphical server brings -everything- back to normal. Why is it that, once something crashes in ubuntu, it keeps crashing, and eventually you need to reinstall it? No other linux distro acts like that.
Blargh. I would rather take a little extra time setting my computer up than have it fall apart on me without any reason.
Me, I'm sticking with gentoo, and I'm going to continue giving Sabayon to my friends. If they want to try ubuntu, they can install it themselves, because I won't be able to help them fix it if it breaks.
The problem here isn't that Ubuntu makes things simple, it's that Ubuntu takes away the linux user's power while it's simplifying things.
So you want good defaults - that's fine, but why can't I change things to be how I want them?
The worst thing is that I ubuntu has fallen so far from being linux that I can't fix it, anymore. If I'm going to get a friend hooked on linux, I need to be able to help with it. With ubuntu, the problem is not that I -can- change settings via a GUI, it's that I -have- to. And since when do linux users need to restart the computer to change some Xorg settings?
And for those who are saying that Ubuntu "just works", you obviously haven't tried a real linux distro. Ubuntu is the only distro I've experienced actual random crashes and degradation with. On gentoo, fedora, SuSE, debian, and a whole host of other distros I've tried, if something crashes, there was a reason for it. Such as, for example, the fact that I'm currently running KDE 4.3.61 (4.4 alpha). Also, if something major happens like a total graphical server freeze, restarting the graphical server brings -everything- back to normal. Why is it that, once something crashes in ubuntu, it keeps crashing, and eventually you need to reinstall it? No other linux distro acts like that.
Blargh. I would rather take a little extra time setting my computer up than have it fall apart on me without any reason.
Me, I'm sticking with gentoo, and I'm going to continue giving Sabayon to my friends. If they want to try ubuntu, they can install it themselves, because I won't be able to help them fix it if it breaks.
Comment from:
JEDIDIAH [Visitor]
I've been using GUIs on Unix since 1988. Solaris from back in the dark ages of 1996 had little niceties like automounters for external media. So the idea that Unix necessarily needs to be some sort of self-flaggelation society is just nonsense.
Ubuntu is just Debian with mature versions of KDE or GNOME. Beyond apt-get, it's not terribly unique and a package manager is still a very Unix idea. So's the automation the package manager helps enable.
Not everyone that's been using Linux for 14 years or more views some ancient version of SysV as the thing to emulate.
Ubuntu is just Debian with mature versions of KDE or GNOME. Beyond apt-get, it's not terribly unique and a package manager is still a very Unix idea. So's the automation the package manager helps enable.
Not everyone that's been using Linux for 14 years or more views some ancient version of SysV as the thing to emulate.
Comment from:
JEDIDIAH [Visitor]
The idea that Mac has an edge against Linux do to "proprietary apps" is just absurd. Where the Mac can gain converts, it does so by essentially being an appliance. It does well satisfying most users with what's already on the sytsem. Now while it is certainly true that the Mac is more inviting to payware authors, it also means that you are quickly nickel and dimed to death by things that would be considered freebies on Linux or Windows.
Comment from:
JEDIDIAH [Visitor]
> The problem here isn't that Ubuntu
> makes things simple, it's that Ubuntu
> takes away the linux user's power while
> it's simplifying things.
Nonsense. Ubuntu is the same Frankenstein creature made up of various random Free Software projects that any other distribution is. If you were half as smart as you think you are then you would have no problem ripping the training wheels off of Ubuntu.
> makes things simple, it's that Ubuntu
> takes away the linux user's power while
> it's simplifying things.
Nonsense. Ubuntu is the same Frankenstein creature made up of various random Free Software projects that any other distribution is. If you were half as smart as you think you are then you would have no problem ripping the training wheels off of Ubuntu.
Hmmm...first time I've ever heard of this alternative. Obviously, they need a some PR. Coming over to Linux all I ever heard about was Ubuntu. My friends use it. They know how to do things and help me when I get stuck. I don't know anyone using ReactOS but maybe if I had then that would have been my choice. I guess all I'm saying is that if they want some flocking they need to somehow start doing a better job of flapping.