Ubuntu users

[conjamuk]

I am about to install Ubuntu, what is your experience with it good or bad?

[Vive La France]

This should be in Tech and PC chat.

 

Ubuntu is great BTW.

[Medaphoar]

Dunno what Ubuntu is, but it sure does sound like an african bank scheme program to me.

[Digïtál £vîl]

A good article that was on Digg today. Hopefully you would be smarter then a stupid girlfriend.

 

http://contentconsumer.wordpress.com/2008/...-my-girlfriend/

 

 

Also, this should go into the PC chat area. Which is found right here: http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showforum=73

 

Try to look around the forum first for the right area to post. I'm sure it will make a mod's life a little easier.

[G twenty-nine]

Ubuntu is good if the extent of your computer knowledge is turning a computer on. Otherwise, I'd recommend a much more efficient and better distro, such as Archlinux.

[Primer43]

I recommend Debian, which is basically Ubuntu.

 

If you want to learn a lot about linux, install Gentoo. I learn a lot by doing so.

[Saggy]

 

Ubuntu is good if the extent of your computer knowledge is turning a computer on. Otherwise, I'd recommend a much more efficient and better distro, such as Archlinux.

Why? Ubuntu is capable of everything Archlinux or any other mainstream distribution is. It has a bit of a user-friendly or idiot-proof feel, with a lot of automated features, but it is configurable in exactly the same way as any other distribution. There's nothing to say that someone with proficient computer skills couldn't get everything they wanted out of Ubuntu, so why bash it as an inferior distribution? If anything, I would say that the automated parts, the multitude of install features and options, completely trumps most other distributions. Add to that the fact that they're typically far more up-to-date than other distributions, I really don't see why people' treat Ubuntu in this fashion. It's as if people think something needs to be complicated and a pain in the ass to be capable, and if it's simple and streamlined, it's incapable. I mean, there's a lot of people that bitch about the restricted repositories, but what is the problem with simply enabling these if you're willing to put up with a bunch of other mandatory configuration steps with other distributions? Honestly, it's as if simply because Ubuntu tries to be user-friendly, people assume that it's not as capable, and that's just foolish. At a certain point you have to begin to wonder if people do this in some type of pseudo-intellectual attempt to seem as if they're a more sophisticated user.

 

 

Ubuntu is based on the Debian distribution, as is many other distributions. Their goal has been to open up computing to everyone, with up-to-date programs. Because of this they generally release a new version ever six months and the versions held in their repositories are generally more up-to-date than the ones in the general Debian distribution ( Now on Debian Etch, or Debian 4 ). The fact that it is updated once ever six months can become a little bit meddlesome, especially with sketchy upgrade tools that often leave a lot behind the user has to clean up. However, using an older version generally doesn't have any setbacks. They have just released version 8.04, and most people I know are still perfectly happy with version 6.06.

 

The only limitation that Ubuntu has that I can think of is the inability to log-in as root by default. Changing this is extremely simple, and using "sudo su" to gain a root login is also just as easy to accomplish. In the end this is probably more secure anyway, given that root logins will not be allowed for anyone; so not only does it offer a level of idiot-proofing, it also adds a level of hacker-proofing. However, when you consider that the user can simply use "sudo su" for a root login, it's evident that the hacker-proofing is more effective than the idiot-proofing in that scenario.

 

Aside from this, it's pretty bloated. It attempts to include everything that a user would possibly want, so a basic system install tends to take up about three gigs. This typically isn't a problem for users with fast broad-band connections and plenty of hard-drive space, but it can still be somewhat annoying if those are pressing issues. Personally, I've always felt that having to download and install a multitude of obscure packages myself to be more annoying, so I consider this to be more of a strong-suit than a setback, but at the least I can see where G-twenty-nine gets off claiming other distributions are more efficient.

 

 

I don't think that you can really go wrong with a Debian based distribution. Debian itself may be a little too out-dated and complicated for some novice users. Here's a short list of distributions that use Debian.

 

MEPIS

Sidux ( a distirbution which aims to be more up-to-date than Debian, but less user-friendly than Ubuntu )

*ubuntu ( this covers kubuntu, ubuntu, and xubuntu )

Knoppix ( not very user-friendly )

 

As far as Ubuntu goes, I would actually recommend Kubuntu. It uses KDE, which is much more reminiscent of Windows than its counterpart, GNOME. This can help users a lot when trying to figure out how to configure their system, because GNOME has a tendency to leave a lot of system configurations to the terminal without offering much configuration support from graphical segments. Not only does KDE offer a graphical configuration tool for most parts of the system, it's much more intuitive for Windows users to find where these tools are at and use them correctly.

 

Also, as far as learning a lot about Linux goes, Gentoo would be a good distribution to do so with, but it can be a tad annoying because you have to compile everything for it. There are a few other distributions like it where you will learn a lot about Linux:

 

Damn Small Linux

Slackware

Linux From Scratch

[Svip]

I agree with Sag, I am tired for the unreasoned Ubuntu bashing. Ubuntu is focusing a lot on putting useful GUI features into Linux that wasn't there before. A huge improvement. They rely on other projects to improve the kernel, the DE and so forth. But focus largely themselves on the "useful" appearances of the OS. Of course also low-level developing, don't get me wrong.

 

I am a Slackware user. Because I love its stability, and admittedly, I am a bit of a fan for the BSD init system. However, on my laptop, I use Ubuntu because I couldn't be bothered getting wireless working on Slackware. Hell, I have to use modprobe each time my Slackware desktop starts up to get both my Internet AND mouse working. However, so far that hasn't been an issue for 168 days, since I don't reboot.

[G twenty-nine]

@Svip & Sag:

I just gave Archlinux as an example, because it is quite fast as it is optimized for the i686 architecture, and has a medium level learning curve. Ubuntu is a good desktop for lightweight Linux usage. Why? Mainly because it's only flaw is being too simple.

 

Ubuntu has a great community and many help documents, but the drive for such knowledge is generally lost, and I feel that is a huge part to linux other than just being an operating system. I doubt that a first time linux user to ubuntu could switch out to another more complicated distro--and while this may be irrelevant to the user's needs, it usually isn't when you look at the majority of the user base. Sure, an Ubuntu user will probably use CLI every once in a while, but unless they really want to see what is beyond that, they won't use it often.

 

I feel that one of the reasons people make the switch to linux is because of efficiency. Linux is just much more efficient than OS X or Windows. I am not trying to advocate forced learning, I am just suggesting that it shouldn't be a last resort type of deal.

 

I never suggest Ubuntu to new linux users, but I do to people that have used linux before. This is because I think they will be happy with the knowledge they learn about their operating system. Ubuntu is good for people that have used linux if they just want a quick-fix situation where they don't want to worry about every little detail because chances are they can accomplish their task efficiently, where as without starting out with a more complex distro, these options will not be made very clear to them and it will seem like something they don't want to learn. It's hard to get someone to linux, and even harder to get them to learn about it.

 

I am also sure you two know about linux pretty well, because I have talked linux with you guys in the past a lot (IRC mostly, probably don't remember...), and can't say that this knowledge isn't useful for even the basic user.

 

And also, yes, there are many great meduim/hard distros, I just threw Archlinux out there because it seems to be the midpoint between too complex and too easy.

 

Sorry if I didn't make much sense in the previous paragraphs, sometimes it is hard for me to think out a lot of things and type them up.

[derty]

 

Ubuntu is good if the extent of your computer knowledge is turning a computer on. Otherwise, I'd recommend a much more efficient and better distro, such as Archlinux.

Bullsh*t. Archlinux is neat, but you can't deny Ubuntu is a good all around windows replacement desktop. And that is what it's purpose is. It is probably much better.

 

It serves that purpose and better than any other free distro IMO.

 

You can do a lot with it and it gets better. It is a great distro all around, probably the best to ever be released in that respect.

 

@OP: Just make sure if you are dual booting you pay close attention to the install routine. It is very easy for anyone in ubuntu's GUI installer. The ideal method would be to have a chunk of free space (not partitioned) and let ubuntu do it automatically bu "use largest chunk of empty space."

 

If you've only got one partition, let it shrink it, don't do it in XP.

 

edit: didn't see your new post, I'd walked away before finishing:

 

 

I never suggest Ubuntu to new linux users,

 

I always do But yea, that all makes more sense, at first it had seemed like you were saying ubuntu is only good for the incompetent

Edited April 28, 2008 by derty

[Saggy]

 

Ubuntu is a good all around windows replacement desktop. And that is what it's purpose is

Uhh, no... Ubuntu offers itself to those who wish to use it for this purpose, but that's not its intended purpose.

 

I use to have a copy of the Ubuntu mission statement, but now I can't find it anywhere. Anyway, the whole point behind Ubuntu is to offer a rich and enjoyable experience to everyone. Not just the technically savvy, and not just the computer illiterate, but to both and everything inbetween. I think it does a terrific job of this; it is easily configurable by those without much computer skills or knowledge of Linux, but at the same time it still complies to standard Debian/GNU operations so that most other Linux users will be able to find accommodation for their more specific likings.

 

g29

 

The thing about Linux is that it's just a kernel. It's not really its own OS, it's just a kernel that several OSs have decided to adopt as the best option for their distribution. Furthermore, Ubuntu is just an OS that has adopted one of those distributions ( Debian/GNU ). Sure some people want to learn a lot about Linux, and are thrilled to be part of the "Linux community", but you have to realize there's a large portion of users who just simply want to be able to take advantage of the Linux kernel in a stable OS that doesn't take too much interest to run and configure. I think Ubuntu is really the first distribution to succeed in putting Linux into people's minds as an actual operating system, and not just some tech. hobbyist's niche or a complicated piece of server software. I think that if a person wanted to learn more about the Linux kernel, Linux community, or something along those lines that Ubuntu offers a good enough inlet for them, but if a person just wanted to be able to use a computer with readiness and ease, I don't think that their concern is going to be Linux or a distribution of it that forces them to have an understanding of Linux to use the computer.