Ubuntu?
Submitted by root
| Not interested |
   32% | 351 votes |
| Very curious |
20% | 219 votes |
| May switch soon |
5% | 59 votes |
| Using it now |
26% | 284 votes |
| Switched back |
9% | 107 votes |
| I have no desktops |
3% | 43 votes |
| Total 1081 votes |
i would never give up my pure-debian servers (i.e. 'switch'), but given all the acclaim ubuntu has received recently, and given that it's debian under the hood, i might be willing to try it out on a desktop machine or laptop and see what it can do.
for instance, i'd be very curious to know whether it can run my eMachines m5312 laptop's wireless adapter (a Broadcom 802.11g model) out of the box.
for instance, i'd be very curious to know whether it can run my eMachines m5312 laptop's wireless adapter (a Broadcom 802.11g model) out of the box.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (84.155.xx.xx) on Fri 3 Jun 2005 at 21:12
> i'd be very curious to know whether it can run my eMachines m5312 laptop's wireless adapter (a Broadcom 802.11g model) out of the box.
I don't think it will, Broadcom adapters only run with ndiswrapper, and Ubuntu can't ship the .sys files.
I've been using Debian sarge for about four months now, and I like it quite a lot. As I have used other distros before, I know which packages I want, I dont't need a ready-to-use selection, but I need some programms that aren't included in Ubuntu.
I will stick to Debian and I can't wait for sarge to be released, but maybe I will try to use Ubuntu to "convert" some Windows users to Linux. I think (for me) it's easier to configure a Debian-like system than having to search for the right config files when using so-called user friendly distributions.
I don't think it will, Broadcom adapters only run with ndiswrapper, and Ubuntu can't ship the .sys files.
I've been using Debian sarge for about four months now, and I like it quite a lot. As I have used other distros before, I know which packages I want, I dont't need a ready-to-use selection, but I need some programms that aren't included in Ubuntu.
I will stick to Debian and I can't wait for sarge to be released, but maybe I will try to use Ubuntu to "convert" some Windows users to Linux. I think (for me) it's easier to configure a Debian-like system than having to search for the right config files when using so-called user friendly distributions.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (128.187.xx.xx) on Wed 1 Jun 2005 at 15:38
All I'm wanting is 3 things - a netinstall and the 3-5 floppy install as options next to the live-cd/install-cd options and then _complete_ compatibility with Debians repository.
One thing that I've really enjoyed about Debian is that I can decide what goes in - I'm not stuck with 'everything' that the developers think I want.
I enjoy Ubuntu's 'complete package' - but I want to define what 'complete' is myself.
I tend to install Debian using either the net-install cd or the floppy install, and then just apt-get from there.
Does Ubuntu have these as options?
(As a side note to expand on my third request - I've heard rumors (? or facts ?) that Ubuntu's repository does not play very well with Debian's repository... to what extent is that true? I could understand that _complete_ is probably asking too much but it's what I want.)
One thing that I've really enjoyed about Debian is that I can decide what goes in - I'm not stuck with 'everything' that the developers think I want.
I enjoy Ubuntu's 'complete package' - but I want to define what 'complete' is myself.
I tend to install Debian using either the net-install cd or the floppy install, and then just apt-get from there.
Does Ubuntu have these as options?
(As a side note to expand on my third request - I've heard rumors (? or facts ?) that Ubuntu's repository does not play very well with Debian's repository... to what extent is that true? I could understand that _complete_ is probably asking too much but it's what I want.)
[ Parent ]
Every couple of months, there's a new hype distro. I'm not saying some those distro's aren't great, but after many years of distro testing, compiling code and learning, you grow weary of installing and testing as opposed to actually using a distribution, either as end-user or as developer. And you tend to stick with old and stable distributions you have full control over, such as Slackware or Debian.
For myself, I can't see what Ubuntu would have that Debian doesn't, or can not be set up trivially. For newbie users, well, I guess that's probably a different story, but that wasn't the question.
The better Linux desktop oriented distributions become, the more Linux desktops we will see out there, and that can't be a bad thing... so good luck to them.
[ Parent ]
For myself, I can't see what Ubuntu would have that Debian doesn't, or can not be set up trivially.
Try X.org for a start :)
I installed Ubuntu on my primary machine yesterday, after using on my laptop for some time.
You're right in that it doesn't offer a huge amount that Debian doesn't (other than X.org), but what it does is set everything up very nicely from the outset.
In very many ways Ubuntu is just a polished version of Debian. As you say, after many years you grow weary of installing and testing, and Ubuntu goes a long way to making everything 'just work'.
I certainly won't be replacing any of my Debian servers with Ubuntu any time soon, but for the desktop it's a nice low-maintenance distro.
Sam Bashton
Bashton Ltd - Linux Consultancy
[ Parent ]
Posted by Steve (82.41.xx.xx) on Sun 5 Jun 2005 at 15:11
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
Is changing a distro just to get X.org that useful though?
Once Sarge has been released we'll have X.org proper in Sid soon afterwards. But even so right now the differences between the two are minimal at best.
Is there anything useful that's gained by switching?
(I can accept that the Ubuntu setup might be a good enough reason to switch in it's own right - but since you mention X.org I have to ask if it's sufficiently different/better/sexier that it's omission from Debian right now is a big problem).
Steve
-- Steve.org.uk
[ Parent ]
Well I'll be upfront about my main reason for changing distro - my harddisk died, I had an Ubuntu CD to hand and decided it was the quickest way to get back up and running.
To the knowledgeable user there's not a huge amount to be gained from switching, at least in the short term. I'd hope that the random font issues and other little niggles that one sometimes experiences when libraries change in Debian wouldn't occur in Ubuntu, but we'll have to wait and see.
As I said before, the main advantage Ubuntu has over plain Debian is how little extra configuration is needed. If you've already got a working system you've already done this, so this is rather negated.
Sam Bashton
Bashton Ltd - Linux Consultancy
To the knowledgeable user there's not a huge amount to be gained from switching, at least in the short term. I'd hope that the random font issues and other little niggles that one sometimes experiences when libraries change in Debian wouldn't occur in Ubuntu, but we'll have to wait and see.
As I said before, the main advantage Ubuntu has over plain Debian is how little extra configuration is needed. If you've already got a working system you've already done this, so this is rather negated.
Sam Bashton
Bashton Ltd - Linux Consultancy
[ Parent ]
Does X.org run stable?
[ Parent ]
"Try X.org for a start"
But there it stops, too. ;)
If I would re-install my desktop often I could probably take a look at it, but the crux of the matter is that I never have to re-install it thanks to apt. Luckily, because I really hate to get everything back to the level of customisation I compulsively need. Hence, there is no use for me in easy, friendly do-it-for-you installation systems.
This is by no means Ubuntu bashing, though. I haven't tried it, so I can't comment on the specifics. I think the (not new, btw) idea of easy installation and extreme user-friendlyness on top of a solid debian base might be a winning combination in the fight for end-user desktops. Whether Ubuntu will succeed, and more importantly keep on succeeding in the following years, is something we can only guess about / hope for.
[ Parent ]
Posted by sabin (62.99.xx.xx) on Sun 5 Jun 2005 at 17:59
[ Send Message | View sabin's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
[ Send Message | View sabin's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
well kbuntu is sexier anyway imo, specially when it comes to design. could be just because I like kde more than gnome as well but hey.. compare this and make your own opinion.
http://www.osdir.com/Article4930.phtml vs. http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=305&slide =1
./sabin -s
http://www.osdir.com/Article4930.phtml vs. http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=305&slide =1
./sabin -s
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Mon 6 Jun 2005 at 09:15
If Ubuntu:
* sticks to its time-based releases
* keeps releasing security updates for as long as they say they will
* remains stable
then I'd be mad not to switch.
* sticks to its time-based releases
* keeps releasing security updates for as long as they say they will
* remains stable
then I'd be mad not to switch.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (193.237.xx.xx) on Mon 6 Jun 2005 at 17:43
I've used it for a server. Needed a later BIND9 install - ended up building from source when Debian repositories had what I wanted prepackaged but wouldn't play nicely.
I've installed it for a couple of desktops and things were broke that weren't broke in Sarge.
The last post I saw in u.c.o.l on the topic pointed out that the software the poster had trouble with was "newer" in Sarge than in Ubuntu.
Nuff said.
Perhap if they switched to "release when ready" they could fix more of the blatant bugs before it ends in my hands? ;)
I've installed it for a couple of desktops and things were broke that weren't broke in Sarge.
The last post I saw in u.c.o.l on the topic pointed out that the software the poster had trouble with was "newer" in Sarge than in Ubuntu.
Nuff said.
Perhap if they switched to "release when ready" they could fix more of the blatant bugs before it ends in my hands? ;)
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (206.53.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 12:11
wow......i've been using ubuntu since its first release and i've never had the problems that you speak of. listen, i love debian, that's why i'm using ubuntu. it's a great distro, plain and simple.
broken packages? i don't remember any. i just don't want to wait 3 years for a newer, updated version of debian.
broken packages? i don't remember any. i just don't want to wait 3 years for a newer, updated version of debian.
[ Parent ]
Debian on my servers, Ubuntu on my desktops!
..and even my friends and family like it!
..and even my friends and family like it!
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (68.126.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 00:00
Ubuntu was the first where the installer recognised my 1920x1200 LCD monitor on my dell laptop. That made me start switching over for desktop use.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (208.42.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 03:09
To get a feel for it, I tried putting it on my "garbage computer" -- lovingly named because it is a combination of old parts I had sitting around and an HP I saw by a dumpster.
It seems like IDE support is not in the Ubuntu install kernel. Since it is only about a 580 meg install disk and, I believe, Shuttleworth wants to bring linux to the world, I would think he would want to maximize the ability to install on suboptimal equipment.
The machine was already running SimplyMEPIS by the way. Program load time is crummy but response is actually quite bearable for casual use on a K-6 300 with 256 meg of PC133 ram
It seems like IDE support is not in the Ubuntu install kernel. Since it is only about a 580 meg install disk and, I believe, Shuttleworth wants to bring linux to the world, I would think he would want to maximize the ability to install on suboptimal equipment.
The machine was already running SimplyMEPIS by the way. Program load time is crummy but response is actually quite bearable for casual use on a K-6 300 with 256 meg of PC133 ram
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (202.159.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 06:09
I switched to Debian over in Feb 2004, after not being happy with the sluggishness+bugginess of Red Hat 8.0/9.0. Onces switched I was *sold*.
My personal opinion is that Debian Stable is a preferred and the best rock solid server distro out there with Gentoo following close behind. If I want a no-frills Desktop I will go for Ubuntu, which I'm using right now. I know about testing and unstable, but I'm a "bandwidth-challenged" user. Of course, I was running Woody+backports as a desktop on my older PC before.
My personal opinion is that Debian Stable is a preferred and the best rock solid server distro out there with Gentoo following close behind. If I want a no-frills Desktop I will go for Ubuntu, which I'm using right now. I know about testing and unstable, but I'm a "bandwidth-challenged" user. Of course, I was running Woody+backports as a desktop on my older PC before.
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (84.252.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 06:57
I like the idea behind Ubuntu to make debian more usable but apart from that there is nothing else that I like. In reality Ubunty is not more usable and seems to be run by people that don't really know much about usability. As far as usability goes they should probably look at some of the work that the Fedora team has done. Granted that Fedora is one the slowest and most annoying distros that I have ever used the usability is really nice. Oh and releasing Gnome 2.10 without a moenu editor is the dumbest thing that both the Gnome and the Ubuntu team did. So would I ever swicht to Ubuntu? Maybe, but first they have to get a whole mess of things fixed. After all if I was going to fix them myself then Debian is a lot easier and a lot more customizable that Ubuntu. And what in the world is up with that brown color used by default? Brown is not that common of a color in the developed world so perhaps a switch is overdue ...
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Tue 7 Jun 2005 at 09:30
> I like the idea behind Ubuntu to make debian more usable but apart from that there is nothing else that I like.
The time based release cycle is good.
> In reality Ubunty is not more usable and seems to be run by people that don't really know much about usability.
A professional usability expert works full time for them.
> Granted that Fedora is one the slowest and most annoying distros that I have ever used the usability is really nice.
Compared to the same version of the programs on what distro?
The time based release cycle is good.
> In reality Ubunty is not more usable and seems to be run by people that don't really know much about usability.
A professional usability expert works full time for them.
> Granted that Fedora is one the slowest and most annoying distros that I have ever used the usability is really nice.
Compared to the same version of the programs on what distro?
[ Parent ]
I used it, at first I like it, but later I found it suckz
[ Parent ]
Posted by Steve (82.41.xx.xx) on Wed 8 Jun 2005 at 14:08
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
"suckz" how?
I had a test installation for a few days and it seemed nice enough - just wasn't interested in switching full time.
Steve
-- Steve.org.uk
[ Parent ]
One of the reason is on the resources usage, for example when I fireup my Mozilla-Firefox, after browsing sites which have flash & java content. The browser will become very slow to response, I need to Ctrl-Alt-BckSpace. Then re-login.
I don't have this on my debian-sid, therefore I am changing back from Ubuntu to Debian.
I don't have this on my debian-sid, therefore I am changing back from Ubuntu to Debian.
[ Parent ]
Posted by dkg (216.254.xx.xx) on Sun 12 Jun 2005 at 02:13
[ Send Message | View dkg's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
[ Send Message | View dkg's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
a friend of mine reported similar behavior (which i've never seen), but i'd love to get to the bottom of it.
what java packages are you using on ubuntu? what flashplayer are you running? do you have comparable packages installed on your sid installation? if they are different, how are they different? have you tried putting the packages you use on sid into your ubuntu installation in place of the ubuntu packages?
what java packages are you using on ubuntu? what flashplayer are you running? do you have comparable packages installed on your sid installation? if they are different, how are they different? have you tried putting the packages you use on sid into your ubuntu installation in place of the ubuntu packages?
[ Parent ]
Posted by Anonymous (67.166.xx.xx) on Mon 13 Jun 2005 at 02:24
For everyone not sure, let me explain from my perspective why people are switching and succesfully using the Ubuntu distro.
First and foremost, Ubuntu takes the well known stable and solid base of Debian and presents it with an attractive and
friendly face. They are focused on primarily making desktop
Linux an attractive alternative to Windows. We all know already that Linux is ready for the desktop, they are just putting a no nonsense polish on the whole concept.
Ubuntu also adds value to the Linux user by having a good philosophy and therefore creating a community around it. Many people I have talked to like the principles of the distro. Ubuntu is not going to be one of those hype distros. I would bet that if Debian was to disapear today,
Ubuntu will be here to stay for awhile.
The distro has so many selling points for newbs and experienced user alike: Ubuntu's commitment to free software, and the commitment to a predictable release schedule. They also include the newest packages (Why didnt sarge include GNOME 2.10 and KDE 3.4?) They are also making great progress with making desktop focused tools and utilities.
Lets face it folks, for Linux desktop adoption to take place
this must happen. People (Power and non-power users) don't want to struggle with config files everyday.
Now for servers, I would pick Debian stable over Ubuntu but for normal desktop productivity it can't be beat.
Now these are my observations. Other distros have alot of features that Ubuntu offers but not the same spirit. I used
Fedora Core for awhile and although I like the bleeding edge
and stable nature of FC, the community just doesnt compare. Fedora Core also suffers from the politics of being wedded to Red Hat. Fedora Core also releases every six months or so but they quickly abandon users of the earlier releases. If you don't believe me ask about FC 1 or 2 in the channel. Disclaimer: This all may change due to the recent changes and the implementation of the Fedora Foundation. I am no hater of Red Hat, I just don't want the politics.rpm that is included with the distro. (yum remove politics.rpm anyone?)
Ubuntu hasn't caused me any problems thus far and I enjoy that it is based upon the rock that is Debian so that I may learn more Linux administration. In my experience Debian users have a good knack for the way Linux works. Not just Red Hat.
My background, started with Debian as newb, went to Mandrake - After wanting a better system switched to Fedora Core for its bleeding edge nature and used it for around a year. Installed Ubuntu on some test boxes and while waiting on FC_4 decided to switch to Ubuntu.
Thanks for reading.
First and foremost, Ubuntu takes the well known stable and solid base of Debian and presents it with an attractive and
friendly face. They are focused on primarily making desktop
Linux an attractive alternative to Windows. We all know already that Linux is ready for the desktop, they are just putting a no nonsense polish on the whole concept.
Ubuntu also adds value to the Linux user by having a good philosophy and therefore creating a community around it. Many people I have talked to like the principles of the distro. Ubuntu is not going to be one of those hype distros. I would bet that if Debian was to disapear today,
Ubuntu will be here to stay for awhile.
The distro has so many selling points for newbs and experienced user alike: Ubuntu's commitment to free software, and the commitment to a predictable release schedule. They also include the newest packages (Why didnt sarge include GNOME 2.10 and KDE 3.4?) They are also making great progress with making desktop focused tools and utilities.
Lets face it folks, for Linux desktop adoption to take place
this must happen. People (Power and non-power users) don't want to struggle with config files everyday.
Now for servers, I would pick Debian stable over Ubuntu but for normal desktop productivity it can't be beat.
Now these are my observations. Other distros have alot of features that Ubuntu offers but not the same spirit. I used
Fedora Core for awhile and although I like the bleeding edge
and stable nature of FC, the community just doesnt compare. Fedora Core also suffers from the politics of being wedded to Red Hat. Fedora Core also releases every six months or so but they quickly abandon users of the earlier releases. If you don't believe me ask about FC 1 or 2 in the channel. Disclaimer: This all may change due to the recent changes and the implementation of the Fedora Foundation. I am no hater of Red Hat, I just don't want the politics.rpm that is included with the distro. (yum remove politics.rpm anyone?)
Ubuntu hasn't caused me any problems thus far and I enjoy that it is based upon the rock that is Debian so that I may learn more Linux administration. In my experience Debian users have a good knack for the way Linux works. Not just Red Hat.
My background, started with Debian as newb, went to Mandrake - After wanting a better system switched to Fedora Core for its bleeding edge nature and used it for around a year. Installed Ubuntu on some test boxes and while waiting on FC_4 decided to switch to Ubuntu.
Thanks for reading.
[ Parent ]
Why Ubuntu?
Debian has a working package system that almost never breaks, if you not using the latest of everything. But before Sarge was freezed you had...
Ubuntu is a stable framework with later versions of supported applications than in Debian stable. Balanced between latest and stable.
Most important it is much more well configured compared to "vanilla" Debian. My experience is that I spend almost no uncessary configuration time when installing Ubuntu packages. I have already done some installation and found some timesavers for me with a more pure Debian background on this page.
Debian has a working package system that almost never breaks, if you not using the latest of everything. But before Sarge was freezed you had...
Ubuntu is a stable framework with later versions of supported applications than in Debian stable. Balanced between latest and stable.
Most important it is much more well configured compared to "vanilla" Debian. My experience is that I spend almost no uncessary configuration time when installing Ubuntu packages. I have already done some installation and found some timesavers for me with a more pure Debian background on this page.
[ Parent ]