Wrong Market?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Feb 13, 2009 11:44 AM EDT |
Isn't Canonical big enough to do both? |
| dinotrac Feb 13, 2009 11:58 AM EDT |
Not sure they are big enough to do one, let alone both. GIven the troubles I've had with desktop Ubuntu, I shudder to think of it on the server, but... more to the point... There are already two more or less server-oriented Linux distributions supported by solid and capable companies who sell to the enterprise. And that doesn't even count IBM. If corporate support is not a big deal, then Debian offers a solid and reliable server distribution that makes Ubuntu on the server more or less irrelevant. Besides -- Ubuntu is for fanbois. Servers are for business. |
| theboomboomcars Feb 13, 2009 1:24 PM EDT |
A problem with Ubuntu on the server is that the release schedule is a bit too agressive for the desktop when absolute stability isn't the top priority. LTS is a good idea but they still haven't implemented it well yet. If the LTS releases were a bit more stable when released they would be good for corporate desktops. If Canonical wants to make more money off Ubuntu they will need to actually advertise, like good ol TV and Radio stuff. They have various OEMs including big name ones, but still people don't know about the option. Since we all know that Dell and the gang aren't going to advertise their Ubuntu computers, except netbooks, and hide the link to buy them, Canonical needs to step up to increase their revenue. I also think it would be cool if Zareason, System 76, etc could get into advertising but I am guessing that it is too expensive. |
| rijelkentaurus Feb 13, 2009 3:02 PM EDT |
Quoting: If corporate support is not a big deal, then Debian offers a solid and reliable server distribution that makes Ubuntu on the server more or less irrelevant. HP supports Debian to what looks like a pretty good extent, so one can still have Debian and enterprise support. http://h71028.www7.hp.com/services/cache/442406-0-0-0-121.ht... |
| tuxtom Feb 17, 2009 10:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Besides -- Ubuntu is for fanbois. Servers are for business. ...and in the real-world business of servers, Debian is for fanbois and Red Hat Enterprise is de facto. |
| KernelShepard Feb 17, 2009 11:12 AM EDT |
I think that Ubuntu focusing on the desktop user is the best long-term solution, really. The way I see it (and I could be wrong), is that the server market is basically migrating from UNIX to Linux these days, but once that's completed, all that's left is the desktop. Selling to the server market is quick easy money (not a hard sell to convince people to move from expensive UNIX to a much cheaper Linux that likely does what they need better anyway). The harder fight is going to be to win the desktop "wars", but that's where all the money is (well, enterprise desktops, not so much home-user desktops I suppose). theboomboomcars: I think you underestimate Ubuntu's free marketing done by its user base. Yes, they may need to do some advertising, but their "fanboy" (as someone put it earlier in this thread) user base is pretty powerful afaict. On the desktop, they lead companies who have been around far longer and who also have built up substantial loyal user bases. |
| gus3 Feb 17, 2009 11:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:in the real-world business of servers, Debian is for fanbois and Red Hat Enterprise is de facto.Windows is de facto. Red Hat is for executives who can't get past the idea that you have to pay for something for it to be any good. |
| theboomboomcars Feb 17, 2009 12:59 PM EDT |
KernelShepard- There free marketing has done them wonders, they have gone from this new unknown distro to one that spends a lot of time at the top of distrowatch, so yes they have done well. And if I am remembering right it is, or just about, selfsustaining which is very good as well. But if they get their name out more to those who don't know computers they will be able to do more. I was finally able to dump windows because Breezy Badger was able to support all of my hardware and not randomly freeze like Suse and Mandrake had been doing for me. |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2009 2:35 PM EDT |
gus3 - Windows is de facto? Maybe for small shops and non-critical processing. In the places I've worked, "big boy" computing is far more likely to migrate to Linux than to Windows. |
| vainrveenr Feb 17, 2009 11:23 AM EDT |
Quoting:Windows is de facto. Red Hat is for executives who cannot get past the idea that you have to pay for something for it to be any good As any good lawyer with an IT-background will point out, a formal policy of a de jure standard can often be diametrically opposed to a de facto standard ( see [url=http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/de jure]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/de jure[/url] ) The formal de jure IT policies of government entities and large corporations -- for front-end Desktop systems in particular -- still primarily include MS-Windows and other Microsoft software, and by-and-large exclude Ubuntu, Red Hat and other FOSS as much as possible. So one ultimate aim here (highly admirable!) is to spread Ubuntu and Red Hat Linux from server systems up front forward to mainstream desktop usage. In an idealized situation, this is to be implemented de facto and transparently for the end-user, while formally established de jure company-wide. |
| tuxtom Feb 18, 2009 1:03 AM EDT |
Face it, Windows will be the predominant desktop for our lifetime. That isn't going to change anytime soon. No, it's not. You're high if you think it will. Time to get back on your meds. The only possibility of changing that would be via a unified front, and KDE, Gnome, RPM, DEB and the other sundry battles of the distro wars are as far from a unified front as one is going to find...not to mention none are ready for prime-time corporate IT. No, they're not. You're high if you they are. Time to get back on your meds. On the server-side though, when you find Linux running in a big corp, it is gonna be RHEL/CentOS...not Debian or Ubuntu or Suse. That is what I meant by De Facto. Sure, there are niche cases...and they are gonna stay niche, just like Windows is gonna stay on the desktop. Quite frankly, I think it is fine...if not desirable...to grow Linux on the back end and let Windows keep the desktop. End-user support sucks. Let them keep what they know. If people wanted another desktop they would seek another desktop. To them Microsoft is perfect and to tell them otherwise will confuse them, with negative consequences on a massive scale. People don't want Linux as their desktop. No, they don't. You're high if you they do. Time to get back on your meds and get busy working on your server... |
| bigg Feb 18, 2009 2:40 AM EDT |
> Face it, Windows will be the predominant desktop for our lifetime. That isn't going to change anytime soon. No, it's not. You're high if you think it will. Time to get back on your meds. Maybe if you're 100. I'm pretty young, and in my lifetime I expect that the desktop will be irrelevant. I have a book on my shelf. Here's the editorial review from Amazon: "Well-known marketing expert X gives an interesting three-pronged look at the behemoth of the computer industry. Starting with a brief history, X then discusses what he considers recent strategic mistakes made by *. The second part outlines strategies for competitors of *. He contends that the strengths that once helped * may now be weaknesses; for example, *'s size and its dominance now impede its ability to react quickly to both rapidly changing technology and small niche markets. Part three examines what is projected to be a constantly changing future, and suggests that * must learn to respond speedily to the persistent demands of the marketplace." You can fill in the "*" with your choice of company. By your reasoning, * must be Microsoft. The book was silly - mostly wishful thinking - at the time it was written. Just four years later Larry Ellison famously called that company "irrelevant". The simple fact is that the game changes through time. It's tough to be dominant as a utility company for 70 years. If Microsoft can maintain their dominance for another 70 years in a field that changes as fast as computing, they've done something pretty special. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 18, 2009 8:52 AM EDT |
64 here and I expect to outlive m$! Well, at least I want to live to see them, hat in hand, begging for a "bailout". |
| herzeleid Feb 18, 2009 9:16 AM EDT |
Wow, some people are remarkably lacking in vision - all they can see is "microsoft uber alles" forever and ever. I hate to bust your bubble, folks, but I for one am just not all that impressed by microsoft, and have no use for windows. I am hearing a lot of these days from "Joe Sixpack" types who remark in passing that the really aren't that happy with microsoft anymore, and are interested in trying out this "ubuntu" thing they've been hearing about. As for ubuntu on the server, someone ought to tell wikipedia about that - they have consolidated all their servers on ubuntu. oh, noes! |
| bigg Feb 18, 2009 9:54 AM EDT |
> I am hearing a lot of these days from "Joe Sixpack" types who remark in passing that the really aren't that happy with microsoft anymore And here's the thing: those folks are the ones that don't like to think about the computer. Hearing swear words come out of the mouth of Vista users just doesn't signal good things about Microsoft's future. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 18, 2009 10:18 AM EDT |
Quoting:As for ubuntu on the server, someone ought to tell wikipedia about that - they have consolidated all their servers on ubuntu. oh, noes! If I were Wikipedia I'd use Ubuntu too. They get Canonical support for next to nothing. But for any venture that doesn't get such lucky breaks I'd go with Debian any time. |
| herzeleid Feb 18, 2009 10:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:If I were Wikipedia I'd use Ubuntu too. They get Canonical support for next to nothing. But for any venture that doesn't get such lucky breaks I'd go with Debian any time.debian, ubuntu - on the server there's really not much difference. Like you said, it all boils down to the support options. |
| jezuch Feb 18, 2009 11:32 AM EDT |
Quoting:Face it, Windows will be the predominant desktop for our lifetime. People in my country told the same thing about communism just three decades ago. And then, in 1989, the communists were voted out of the parliament. When the Berlin wall was being torn down, Poland had already been a free country for a couple of years. Here's an uplifting story for all prisoners in the land of Windows. |
| tracyanne Feb 18, 2009 11:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:I am hearing a lot of these days from "Joe Sixpack" types who remark in passing that the really aren't that happy with microsoft anymore, and are interested in trying out this "ubuntu" thing they've been hearing about. This, after all that's what my little old ladies are, your average user that goes to the chain store and buys what the salesman shows them, because the nice man said it was a good buy. And when you explain things like this http://slashdot.org/~TechForensics to them they are even more interested in looking at other options. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 18, 2009 1:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:debian, ubuntu - on the server there's really not much difference. Like you said, it all boils down to the support options. That's not what I said. Ubuntu isn't as stable as Debian and for a server stability is important. I'd only go with Ubuntu if I got support with it for very little money. If it would costs me a lot or if I have to support myself then I'd go with Debian instead. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 18, 2009 2:49 PM EDT |
I think Ubuntu's effort on the desktop can only help them on the server side. Whenever somebody picks up on Ubuntu for the desktop, they learn how things work, how all the tools work, how the updating goes, the upgrading, the packages, etc. It's not that big a leap to think that when people learn Ubuntu on the desktop, if and when they get to the point that they need to roll out a server (or 10, or 100) that they would be very amenable to a Ubuntu-branded server product. Another very attractive thing about Ubuntu on the server is that with the alternative install, it's possible to check a few boxes and have the whole LAMP setup. Now for a production server, almost all admins want things either a little or a lot more custom, but it's nice to have somewhere to start. Along this same line, I think Fedora is an important project because it gives a Red Hat experience to anybody who wants to burn the ISO and install it. Now if only Fedora could get some of that Ubuntu mojo going ... |
| herzeleid Feb 18, 2009 4:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:That's not what I said. Ubuntu isn't as stable as Debian and for a server stability is important. I'd only go with Ubuntu if I got support with it for very little money. If it would costs me a lot or if I have to support myself then I'd go with Debian instead.Ah, but I do say that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm curious about your idea that the debian derived ubuntu is somehow less stable than debian. I don't see any difference; I've never seen either a debian or an ubuntu server crashing or needing a reboot except for hardware maintenance or a kernel upgrade. Do you have some sort of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) for your statement? |
| bigg Feb 18, 2009 4:11 PM EDT |
> Now if only Fedora could get some of that Ubuntu mojo going I've been running Fedora 10 on my newest laptop and am shocked at just how much Fedora has improved the last few years, in pretty much every area. I've got nothing but good things to say based on three weeks of use. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 18, 2009 9:49 PM EDT |
Gotta tell you, all that talk about Debian being hard to install. It's not hard to install at all. And as far as stability goes, I sure haven't found Debian to be any more "stable" than Ubuntu or Slackware or ... I'm not all that happy with Debian at the moment, given how many things that used to work early on in Lenny were since broken (with some fixed, others not) for a variety of reasons. The worst was pulling sound support for my chipset because it was available in blob form only (or so the story goes). True, there are some packages that, in my experience, Debian does better (including Gcompris, TuxPaint and Childsplay, the educational games my daughter plays, which the Ubuntu maintainer can't seem to do quite as well), but things can often stay broken in Debian Stable for the duration. The Ted word processor never worked for me in Etch. In Lenny it does, which is a point in Debian's favor. Still, Debian is great. I'd prefer running it, but I got burned so much by Lenny that I'm reluctant to try it again. I'd love to be proven wrong and see everything be fixed, to be sure. Yeah, yeah, I should've stuck with Etch, but with Ubuntu (and a couple versions of Slackware ... etc.) out there, it was hard to stay with it. In contrast, I still think Debian is the best OS for my PowerPC G4 ... and I'm reluctant to upgrade to Lenny there ... I should probably free up a couple boxes and give Lenny another try before I say any more. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2009 10:53 PM EDT |
> Windows will be the predominant desktop for our lifetime. That isn't going to change anytime soon. Tuxtom, Windows only became usable with Windows 3.0 in 1990, and has only been dominate since Windows 95 in 1995. That's just over 14 years. They;re not going to go away anytime soon (Cobol, anyone?), but they may not stay dominate. Things do change, and sometimes they change quickly. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2009 12:37 AM EDT |
Steven -- I feel for you WRT your sound card. Debian was my first Linux distribution., introduced by a Linux ubergeek (and current kernel contributor). I loved it, but then.... Sigh. The whole KDE fiasco (back in 2000) and I left, never to return. It's good to have a politically aware and pure distro, really. I just don't want my computing to depend on it. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 19, 2009 1:10 AM EDT |
I don't think anybody involved in Ubuntu thinks they can't learn substantial things from Debian. After all, Ubuntu is based on Debian. I have a feeling that quite a few people involved in the Debian Project (and many developers and maintainers work on both) are keen at some level to incorporate some of the things that Ubuntu is doing in order to make Debian better. Making it easier to choose alternate desktops in Debian is one thing. Going the other way, I wish Ubuntu would take a hint from Debian and get a network-install image. Then there's the matter of GNOME's Nautilus being configured in Debian to open a new window every time you click on a directory (ugh!). And the trouble with package installation and those packages subsequently showing up in the menus -- I've had problems in both distros. I'd rather configure the menu myself, since I can put things exactly where (and how) I want them. I bet I'm not the only person unhappy with Ubuntu's decision to give up on PowerPC. And I'd sure like to know if anybody with a 32-bit Sparc ever got Etch to install, and if so, how they did it. Thus far, I can't even boot Lenny in 32-bit Sparc (SS 20), let alone get to the point where the installer freezes on me. If a port is going to be that poorly supported, why keep it going? (As I said, though, PowerPC Debian is wonderful). |
| garymax Feb 19, 2009 1:51 AM EDT |
Canonical is in a difficult situation no matter how you slice it. Their aggressive 6-month, ready-or-not release cycle has many squashing bugs that should have been tended to in the beta and rc stages. In fact, some bugs exist to this day. Their server support offerings are priced substantially higher than Red Hat's or Suse's. Regression seems to strike every release so that things which worked yesterday don't after an update today. With Debian being reported to be more stable for server use, Canonical gets competition not only from Red Hat and Suse, but from the very distribution that their product is derived from. Many may ask, "What's the point?" A very untenable position to be in. I think Canonical has done some good things. I was able to get my father off of Windows onto Kubuntu nearly 2 years ago. But I also see a lot of bugs and problems which could and should have been avoided. Mark Shuttleworth may have conquered the desktop--Linux-wise. That was easy enough to do. Just make a distro that is easy to install and free. And mail free copies to anyone who requests them. Shuttleworth has even supposedly said that making money on the desktop is a losing proposition. So, he is depending on server and support deals where two very big, and very well-heeled companies provide reputable products at a lower support cost. If Canonical does not start to advertise their advantages beyond the simple fanboy flair-ups, Canonical and Ubuntu could be irrelevant in a few years time...unless a lot changes--and fast. One of the main reasons why Ubuntu has been so popular is that an entrepreneur decided to start his own distro for the masses and give it away for free. Give anything away for free and the majority will go for it whether it's the best or not. ("Free" is the best word in advertising). The hard part for Canonical is that it's seeking to make money in the very arena where there's the most competition. And so far, Canonical has done little to differentiate itself or advertise why they are better. |
| herzeleid Feb 19, 2009 1:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:With Debian being more stable for server use, Canonical gets competition not only from Red Hat and Suse, but from the very distribution that their product is derived from. Many may ask, "What's the point?"Debian more stable? Evidence? Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples. At any rate, I find that ubuntu LTS is as stable as they come. |
| herzeleid Feb 19, 2009 2:03 AM EDT |
Quoting: Their server support offerings are priced substantially higher than Red Hat's or Suse's.Not really - especially when you consider that we can have 40 ubuntu servers doing generic unix services, 4 of them running mission critical DB2 databases, and canonical is fine with just getting support on the 4. Talk to red hat, and you need to get support for every single redhat box you have in order to be legal. Quoting:And so far, Canonical has done little to differentiate itself or advertise why they are better.You seem to have completely missed ubuntu's meteoric rise in popularity over the past 2 years. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 19, 2009 3:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:Do you have some sort of evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) for your statement? I have experienced a high number of bugs on Ubuntu. Much more than on Debian. That's entirely anecdotal but for me it does validate Garymax's observation: 6 months isn't enough to stabilize Debian unstable and introduce a slew of new features. The last Ubuntu didn't suffer so much from this but I bet that a big reason for that is that Lenny was nearly done. Now we're getting Debian Squeeze and for the coming 6-10 months that is going to be highly volatile with many packages currently sitting in unstable and experimental all going into Squeeze at once. All containing many, many bugs. And the next Ubuntu is going to derive from Squeeze, so prepare yourself. Quoting:Then there's the matter of GNOME's Nautilus being configured in Debian to open a new window every time you click on a directory (ugh!). Debian doesn't set that configuration option. Gnome does that by default. Good luck trying to convince the Gnome people that Browser mode should be the default instead of Object mode. Many have tried but none have succeeded. |
| garymax Feb 19, 2009 4:55 AM EDT |
herzeleid, I wrote "With Debian being reported to be more stable for server use"... I qualified this with "reported" and this has been the opinion of many in the community so I need not offer "facts" here. Quoting: You seem to have completely missed ubuntu's meteoric rise in popularity over the past 2 years. You seem to have missed my point when I wrote: Quoting: Mark Shuttleworth may have conquered the desktop--Linux-wise. That was easy enough to do. Just make a distro that is easy to install and free. And mail free copies to anyone who requests them.. That is the reason for Ubuntu's "meteoric" rise over the last 2 years. Not because it is more stable, necessarily. Canonical serves up a derivative based around apt-get that is easy to use with a new release occuring every 6 months--which is something that Debian could never do. But Canonical has failed to advertise their Unique Selling Proposition. So far, it has relied on the Ubuntu hype machine to get them to where they are. And it has taken them as far as it can. Now, Canonical has to show real value and display why it's better than Red Hat or Suse. And, yes, it has been shown that Canonical's pricing is higher per unit than Red Hat's or Suse's. Quoting: Are you comparing debian stable to Ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples. A specious argument and one of Ubuntu's downsides. If Canonical wants to have "cutting-edge" releases then they should offer an unstable branch much like Debian. Why should the community have to wait 2 years between "stable" releases? Without a "testing" or "unstable" branch, Canonical should make every release "stable". As it is, whenever a release is buggy they use the same line of reasoning: "If you want stable then use the LTS release." So, basically, every release from Canonical is non-stable with only the LTS release being [somewhat] guaranteed to be stable. No wonder there is so much regression. I believe the time has arrived for Canonical to either show why it is a better value than, say, Red Hat or be prepared for a decline--after all, Mark isn't going to send free CDs around the planet forever. And, there are two very capable players in the Linux server space already. |
| bigg Feb 19, 2009 5:20 AM EDT |
> Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS? Even if I were to accept your claim that only LTS has to be stable, even though they are all releases, unlike Debian testing or unstable, are you seriously claiming that when Ubuntu 8.04 was released in April 2008 it was the same quality as Lenny is today? I've not heard anyone make such a claim. I had many, many problems with 8.04 in the weeks after release. It was a horrible distro. Almost a year later it has improved. Is there a 'release' and then a 'stable release'? So you should wait a year after release for it to be stable? I don't understand your comparison at all. |
| garymax Feb 19, 2009 5:57 AM EDT |
Quoting: Are you comparing debian stable to ubuntu non-LTS? Why not compare ubuntu LTS to debian unstable? Or we could just compare apples to apples. Bigg, I think herzeleid was making a point that somehow I was not comparing apples to apples in my evaluation and comparison of Ubuntu to other distros. Thank goodness I use Slackware... |
| bigg Feb 19, 2009 10:25 AM EDT |
> I think herzeleid was making a point that somehow I was not comparing apples to apples in my evaluation and comparison of Ubuntu to other distros. True, but there's also an implicit claim in his response that (a) LTS is the only release that is claimed to be stable, and (b) Ubuntu 8.04 was the same quality on the day it was released as Debian Lenny on the day it was released. |
| garymax Feb 19, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
bigg, I recently experimented with Ubuntu 8.04.2 and found that after installation, the bugs increased and it became more unstable. Things which worked out of the box started failing. I guess for the fanboys Ubuntu can do no wrong. I think Canonical's aggressive 6-month release cycle, together with the use of the unstable Debian branch combines to make the releases very bug ridden. And my experience as well as the experience of others proves this. I'm not saying that the distro has done nothing good--I got my father using it. But, there are many areas where it could improve and where quality suffers at the expense of hitting a deadline. |
| NoDough Feb 19, 2009 5:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:One of the main reasons why Ubuntu has been so popular is that an entrepreneur decided to start his own distro for the masses and give it away for free. Give anything away for free and the majority will go for it whether it's the best or not. ("Free" is the best word in advertising).Ah! That explains why Linux dominates Windows. |
| tracyanne Feb 19, 2009 5:28 PM EDT |
Actually NoDough, it's the other way around because Windows has always been free. The entrepreneur(s) who own Windows realised a long time ago that giving away Windows was the best way to proliferate Windows, and that's what they do. Sometimes they give it away for $150 as a hidden cost in the purchase of a new computer, sometimes they give it away for less as a hidden cost. At other times they make sure they are looking the other way (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) while it gets pirated. |
| herzeleid Feb 19, 2009 9:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:I recently experimented with Ubuntu 8.04.2 and found that after installation, the bugs increased and it became more unstable. Things which worked out of the box started failing.That all sounds a bit vague, and very light on information and details. Quoting:I guess for the fanboys Ubuntu can do no wrong.Sigh. Calling names isn't helping. You seem determined to label ubuntu as "unstable", so anybody who would like to see some evidence for that claim is automatically a fanboy? |
| garymax Feb 19, 2009 11:00 PM EDT |
herzeleidQuoting:That all sounds a bit vague, and very light on information and details. No offense but what do you want, a signed affidavit? If I said I experienced bugs and instability after installing Ubuntu 8.04.2, why are you so determined to think that I didn't? I've been using Linux long enough to know instability and regression when I see it. And others have said the same thing. I have witnesses, I guess. I used the term "fanboy" because any objective criticism of your distro of choice and you're ready to demand proof. What else do you want? Wait a minute...I know...just go to Launchpad. After a fresh release of Ubuntu, Launchpad fills up fast. There's your "anecdotal" evidence. |
| garymax Feb 20, 2009 12:03 AM EDT |
Herzeleid I thought this quote from an article posted here on LXer would prove one of my points with which you seem to disagree concerning support costs being higher with Ubuntu. According to the article by Ken Hess "Commercial Linux Distro Support Shootout," he made the following observation: Quoting:Canonical's Standard support offering is 9x5 — covering your local business hours only — a deviation from the "norm" of 12x5 support from the other two companies. Its Priority support is far more expensive than the competition, which is sure to be a deterrent to many would-be Ubuntu users. Now there's some anecdotal evidence for you. |
| herzeleid Feb 20, 2009 1:29 PM EDT |
garymax -Quoting:I used the term "fanboy" because any objective criticism of your distro of choice and you're ready to demand proof. What else do you want? Wait a minute...I know...just go to Launchpad.What objective criticism? I didn't see any details, only vague complaints I've been using unix since the 80s, linux since 93, so I've been around the block with this stuff. I've used all the major distros, and I've found ubuntu to be a pleasant surprise. It's the only distro that works correctly on my laptop, sorry about that. I recently moved my own servers from suse to ubuntu LTS because I wanted longer support - 5 years vs 2. I've got ubuntu running in the data center of a fortune 100 company and a small business. It's been solid, and the package management and selction is great. So naturally, when someone comes along and says "hey, it's unstable, I tried it and it sucks" I am quite curious to know exactly how it's unstable. Who knows, I could be missing something. And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that! You mentioned launchpad reports as a measure of quality - So, look at the bug reporting mechanism for any distro or any OS for that matter, and you'll get the impression that any of those OSes is a bug riddled mess. Quoting:I thought this quote from an article posted here on LXer would prove one of my points with which you seem to disagree concerning support costs being higher with Ubuntu.Yep, I've seen that, and I even explained to you a few posts up why that doesn't equate to higher support costs, since you can get selective support on ubuntu servers, putting your support dollars where they really matter. Not an option with RHEL or SLES. OTOH, if you still think canonical support is too expensive, you can go to Hewlett-Packard for ubuntu support. Have you priced that option? |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 20, 2009 3:06 PM EDT |
My hope is that Canonical will focus on stripping bugs out of the current LTS. I'm not in a position to know how that's going. I do have 8.04 on a couple of boxes, neither of which I'm really using at the moment. One thing I can tell you -- Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM. I'm sure that's true of many distros, though. I'll have to pump some extra memory into one of my Ubuntu laptops and give it a couple weeks hard use. |
| garymax Feb 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT |
herzeleidQuoting:It's the only distro that works correctly on my laptop, sorry about that. No need to apologize. But there is a need to realize that others will have experiences that are different from yours and you need to respect that. There are too many complaints about Ubuntu to ignore that there is more work to be done. Quoting:So naturally, when someone comes along and says "hey, it's unstable, I tried it and it sucks" If you read my comments carefully I never said that Ubuntu "sucks". If it did I would have never migrated my father to it. I pointed out that there are enough bugs and regression in the distro that made it untenable as a system for me. Quoting:And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that! Slackware. Very few bugs and hardly any patches to the upstream source. |
| bigg Feb 20, 2009 3:21 PM EDT |
> One thing I can tell you -- Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM. I don't know why that is. Is it the kernel? Debian Lenny doesn't run well on my 250 MHz box with 384 MB of RAM. Etch was more than acceptable with fluxbox. I've tried Slackware, Absolute, Wolvix, and several non-Slackware derivatives, and only Puppy was fast. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 20, 2009 6:27 PM EDT |
RE: Ubuntu in 256 MB of RAM. It's GNOME. I know I shouldn't expect GNOME to play well in that environment, but I was shocked with how poorly it performed, the Ubuntu iteration anyway. I'll probably try it with Xubuntu or Fluxbox, but I'll probably pump in a little extra RAM before that. I can see the problem: a whole lot of swapping. I've done quite a few tests with 256 MB of RAM in the past (Ubuntu 6.06 seemed to do acceptably well, as did Debian Etch, Slackware 12.0 and Wolvix Hunter 1.1.0, and of course Puppy 2.x and Damn Small Linux 3.x and 4.x) No surprise there, but it did slow things down considerably. I should probably pull some RAM on my 768 MB laptop and see how the current OSes (OpenBSD 4.4, Puppy 4.1.2, and maybe even Windows XP, which I've left on ...) run with 512 and 256 MB. |
| jdixon Feb 21, 2009 11:05 PM EDT |
>> And if you know of an even better distro, hey, I want some of that!
> Slackware Somehow I knew that was coming. :) > Ubuntu is rather unpleasant in 256 MB of RAM. That's not really Ubuntu, that's more Gnome. Ah, I see you noted the same later on. |
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!