Is Ubuntu Over-Hyped?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kozmcrae May 07, 2007 7:06 PM EDT |
I think it is. |
| pat May 07, 2007 7:38 PM EDT |
No more so than any other name. It is a good thing anyway, because it has focused attention on Linux on the Desktop like no other distro has been able too. Keep up the good work Ubuntu guys (and please fix vmware-player on 6.06 LTS). |
| azerthoth May 07, 2007 7:41 PM EDT |
oh wee, Ubuntu focuses people on Linux. It reminds me that Vista focuses people on Windows ... in about the same way. i.e. if your new to either your going to be short some hair before your done. |
| devnet May 07, 2007 9:26 PM EDT |
What I don't like is that Ubuntu is a word that is taking on more meaning THAN LINUX. That is criminal in my mind. It's not about humanity for all...it's not about Ubuntu or OpenSuSe or Fedora. It's Linux. Attention is focused elsewhere and to me...that's quite sad. |
| richo123 May 08, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
Who cares? I don't. Keep up the good work Debian ;-) ;-) ;-) |
| dinotrac May 08, 2007 4:18 AM EDT |
I don't know... Maybe all the hype is a good thing. I know this -- I met a nice young Ubuntite named Chad at the Flourish conference at Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago a few weeks ago. He convinced me that MythTv + Ubuntu were a Real Good Thing. So...Ubuntu is now the second (PcLinuxOS took a brief spin, until I got frustrated trying to build a new kernel) Linux OS other than SuSE I have used since leaving Debian. It's not without it's frustrations, but it ain't bad. Ubuntites certainly seem to like it, and one should never underestimate the value of people who actually care about something. |
| richo123 May 08, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
This guy also thinks it is: http://linuxhater.blogspot.com/ ROFLMAO. Liked the bit about the new Ubuntu religion. |
| number6x May 08, 2007 5:49 AM EDT |
I think I like linuxhater. He seems like a typical teenager, he hates everything! |
| dinotrac May 08, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
And more ... I just realized that Ubuntu finally got me to try GNOME on more than a passing basis. The CD I got was not Kubuntu, so I just went along with what I had. Doesn't matter that much as the box is primarily a myth frontend testbed. However, if I were doing any serious work, I would put KDE on in a heartbeat. Not a GNOME fan. |
| freethinker May 08, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
Linux, and open source in general, could do with a little overhyping. It's called marketing, finding out what your customers want, creating solutions for them, educating your customers, then packaging it up in something recognizable and identifiable. In that respect, I'm raising my glass to Canonical. Here's to Ubuntu/Kubuntu. Here's to Tux500. Here's to Linspire. Here's to Google's Summer of Code. Here's to every attempt at popularizing Linux, at trying to make it entirely mainstream, at reaching out to the general public. We could do worse than to end up in a world where the majority of people actually think about which OS their system will run. |
| r_a_trip May 08, 2007 6:45 AM EDT |
Does it matter? What I don't like is that Ubuntu is a word that is taking on more meaning THAN LINUX. To which my question is, does it really matter? To me it doesn't. Linux, like GNU, like Gnome, like KDE, like Bash is just a label. When we look coldly at Linux, it is just a Unix kernel clone. If we look at "Linux" in the distribution sense, it still is a Unix kernel clone with a lot of different software projects tacked on, all with different labels. The value isn't in the name. The value is in the core ideas about GNU/Linux. We all know that the non-exclusive and accessible nature of the software is its greatest asset. Ubuntu making a splash is a good thing. While the Linux label might lose some focus right now, it is the first time in the existence of GNU/Linux that "Jane and Joe Sixpack" are being more widely exposed to a new software paradigm. Ubuntu could be the most overhyped, worst engineered distro in the universe, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is attractive to newbies and that it is exposing these Windows refugees enmasse to something they never experienced before. Choice and freedom when it comes to software. The question then becomes what we deem more important. Do we value the label Linux more or do we value the core ideas behind the Linux label the most? I don't think that Ubuntu is the One Distro To Rule Them All. I do know that Ubuntu, at the moment, is the best distro to introduce a lot of people to the ideas embedded in FL/OSS. When the time is ready, we can always educate our recent newbies about the broader sense of GNU/Linux. Let them get hooked on the freedom of FL/OSS for now. |
| dcparris May 08, 2007 6:52 AM EDT |
Interestingly, I'm not all that hung up on Ubuntu's fame. I find the debate over it more intersting than the subject itself. |
| bigg May 08, 2007 7:07 AM EDT |
My only problem (as opposed to the annoyance of hearing "Ubuntu" all the time) is that I often see it phrased as "Ubuntu, unlike any other Linux distribution, makes it easy to do X". X can be installation, software installation, configuration, or many other things. That is, of course, a lie. One thing that surprised me when moving to Debian was how Ubuntu and Debian are almost the same thing, yet Ubuntu is for beginners and Debian is for experts. Ubuntu is good, but sometimes praising Ubuntu is done by trashing other distributions. (The myth is something like this: the Linux world was only accessible to nerds, then Ubuntu descended from heaven, making Linux available to all.) |
| r_a_trip May 08, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
The myth is something like this: the Linux world was only accessible to nerds, then Ubuntu descended from heaven, making Linux available to all. Like all myth's, this one will shatter when the current crop of Ubuntites fan out and discover more of the GNU/Linux ecosphere. Then it will become clear to them that Ubuntu is just one of many usable GNU/Linux Distro's. |
| dinotrac May 08, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
>The myth is something like this: the Linux world was only accessible to nerds, then Ubuntu descended from heaven, making Linux available to all. I'm OK with that. It's not so far from the truth. More to the point, it matches what a lot of people out there think. They will be more receptive to "You're right! It DID take a computer whiz before. This new stuff is different. You should try it!" than to "No, you idiot! Even a half-wit tree sloth could do it!" Think of Ubuntu as an identifiable initiating event -- something that changed the previous "truth". If it gets people in the door and gets them using Linux, it's a good thing. My guess is that it will be easier to get people trying Debian/Mepis/PcLinuxOS/Suse/whathaveyou linux if they run Ubuntu than if they run Windows. |
| Abe May 08, 2007 8:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:(The myth is something like this: the Linux world was only accessible to nerds, then Ubuntu descended from heaven, making Linux available to all.) I believe that Devnet point is, there is more to Linux than Ubuntu, Debian, PCLOS, Mepis, etc... These names are nothing but marketing. The more popular one distro is, the less popular the "Linux" name and what it stands for become among the novice populous. Unfortunately this seems to be unavoidable unless every distro keeps the "Linux" name along with distro names. |
| jezuch May 08, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
What I didn't like about the article was that sounded to me like "It didn't work on my machine! IT SUCKS!". That's why I thought it was not worth to comment it... Not because I'm an Ubuntu fan, I too think it's over-hyped ;) |
| Steven_Rosenber May 09, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
Like it or not, at some point a distribution is going to come along with enough GUI tools and autoconfiguration to make running a Linux desktop easier than running a Windows box. It won't last forever, but sooner or later, a single Linux distribution with big-money backing will become a major player in the OS world. It could be Ubuntu, it could be another distro -- maybe one we've never heard of. If Mac released OS X for PC and didn't charge an arm and a leg for it, this whole game would be turned right on its head. Eventually, somebody's going to up the stakes (and the bucks) -- as Ubuntu is doing now -- and provide an alternative to Windows and OS X that really catches on. It probably will be based on Linux, but it could very well come from BSD or somewhere else entirely. Having one of the top 2 PC makers preload Ubuntu is a huge deal. It could be a turning point not just for Linux but for the entire non-MS world. For fanboys everywhere, the Novell-MS deal is anathema, but the general public and the enterprise world would welcome a branded product called Microsoft Linux as a Windows alternative. Don't laugh -- it could happen. |
| Abe May 09, 2007 1:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:... at some point a distribution is going to come along with enough GUI tools and autoconfiguration to make running a Linux desktop easier than running a Windows box... It is already here if you haven't noticed. I just finished installing PCLinuxOS with all apps and update ready to use on an IBM T42 in just 15 minutes from start to finish. I would like to see anyone (include Gate or Ballmer) install any Windows and apps in 5 times as long. But your point is well taken. That is the beauty of FOSS I guess. It levels the playing field and the best will get the first and biggest prize. |
| jimf May 09, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
> Microsoft Linux as a Windows alternative. Don't laugh -- it could happen. I don't ever see the MS mentality playing by GPL rules. Far more realistic to think that they'd go with BSD, exactly as Apple did. Stealing or buying an OS is much closer to the MS historical model. It's a good point though. Someting very different from what MS does now has to happen. It's got to be obvious, even to them, that the current model just isn't working. |
| tracyanne May 09, 2007 1:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:It's got to be obvious, even to them, that the current model just isn't working. I think it is, at least to some, Ray Ozzie, for example. Take a look at the Microsoft License that Silverlight is released under. |
| helios May 09, 2007 6:03 PM EDT |
until I got frustrated trying to build a new kernel) Yeah Dino...it drove me nuts to...and I mean marathon, multiple nodoze, screw the nodoze, where's my provigil sessions. And not that I don't still love and admire the distro, the ripper gang and the community...I just see Debian as quite possibly being THE base of Linux when the dust settles. Wrong? yeah probably...but when it looks like I might be right until the very end, I can deceive myself suitably. But back to the ubuntu thing. Here...This is where I have a problem with Ubuntu being mistakenly known AS Linux. Yeah, we know the difference, but this guy didn't. Had not our chance meeting taken place, he would have still thought Linux sux. And yes again...I am a BIG fan of Linux Mint. And no...I don't think Ubuntu sux either...it's brilliant but uh...mis-representated. See devnet blog - http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/207-How-to-Become-... Here, this is what I am talking about. http://blog.lobby4linux.com/index.php?/archives/161-Its-The-... |
| vainrveenr May 09, 2007 8:31 PM EDT |
dinotrac wrote:Quoting: However, if I were doing any serious work, I would put KDE on in a heartbeat. Not a GNOME fan.Actually another option surprisingly omitted is Xubuntu. Not as hyped as the straight GNOME Ubuntu, and faster than KDE Kubuntu. As the Xubuntu site http://www.xubuntu.org/ writes it Quoting:It [Xubuntu] is lighter on system requirements and tends to be more efficient than Ubuntu with GNOME or KDE, since it uses the Xfce Desktop environment, which makes it ideal for old or low-end machines, thin-client networks, or for those who would like to get more performance out of their hardware. Just another 'buntu distro option to have available when necessary. |
| dinotrac May 10, 2007 2:33 AM EDT |
>Actually another option surprisingly omitted is Xubuntu. Hmmm. Now that could be interesting, as my Ubuntu box is dedicated to MythTV and doesn't need a whole of desktop... |
| devnet May 10, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
vainrveenr, Xubuntu is taking on bloat faster than any distro on the planet right now. If you don't believe me, download 5.10 and then download the most recent. Compare. http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/remember-this/ I prefer Slackware with XFCE or Arch with XFCE. Much better IMHO...much quicker. Less bloat. |
| vainrveenr May 10, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
Am actually looking forward to release of Slackware 11.1 or higher, so would agree that Slack w/ XFCE is great when installed and tweaked. Another lightweight xfce distro with arguably better performance than any 'buntu's on lower-end boxes is Vector Linux Standard (and *not* the Vector SOHO version!) Vector SOHO allows for some "serious desktop work" and has higher HW specs than Vector Standard, so VL SOHO probably more comparable to the 'buntu's. 2c |
| golem May 13, 2007 7:31 PM EDT |
The word "over-hype" is itself excessive. "Hype" is short for "hyperbole", which is overstatement. So "over-hype" is "over-over-statement". |
| dcparris May 14, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
I think you're over-over-over-stating your case, golem. Sorry, couldn't resist! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!