OSNews

Sounds like a description of every OS ever created.

I'm with you! I really don't like Ubuntu in the least to start with, and really can't stand all these endless reviews for every single release. Just because Ubuntu is popular, that does not mean their level of quality of code is worth a stitch!

A Distribution which is what Ubuntu is, at the end of the day is simply a packaging of many *predominantly* open source programs typically on the Linux kernel, in a cohesive fashion.

Thats not to say they don't code, but thats what they do. I'm not saying they don't backport or cherry pick patches for their choice of programs.

A review of Ubuntu in this instance is not just a review of Ubuntu its a snapshot of the ever evolving landscape that is open-source rather than alternative anti-capitalist that supply a static platform for years.

If you look at the link provided http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu which I only choose because it shows the version of the programs that make ub the *distribution* you see a move from OpenOffice 2.2 to 2.3 a version that brings aditional stability and speed to Document editing on Linux, you see Linux move from 2.6.20 to 2.6.22 (oddly 2.6.23 and I know fedora has this) which brings about as much as anything wireless for many etc etc.

The only thing I see that is missing is the latest xorg-server, and I suspect that is more to do with the binary drivers than anything else, that and the rather shaky release that it was.

So which *code* are you referring to.

I wouldnt go quite as far with the ubuntu bashing as you do (considering what it is trying to be, and considering you compare it to stuff like fedora), but i find linux to be getting rather boring too. The exciting new stuff is all basically things that have been already done elsewhere. Sure, fancy graphics are nice for demoing it to someone used to windows or osx, but I miss the days when the work was being done on more interesting things. I think a big part of it is the massive influx of clueless users over the last few years. I used to be proud of being part of the linux "community", but nowadays it means alot less then it used to. The mac community is stereo-typed by its high priesthood, the windows community by its apologetics, but the linux community used to be all about the uber geek. Instead, now it seems to be about the ex-windows user who is too cheap to buy vista, and wants a free ride.

Personally, I am going the Belenix route, possibly Project Indiana, but we'll see about what kind of direction they go (I don't want to dump linux for a linux clone).

I think that's what's doing a lot of damage to Linux in general, is all these people that want a zero-cost OS, and all this really stupid mentality of people being against Microsoft, so they're cool because they use Linux. My own personal perspective, Linux anti-Microsoft people will never be "cool" as long as they don't know how to work without a graphical desktop environment and without graphical menus. For me, with Linux, I feel depressed, with Open/FreeBSD, I feel I can whip it into a frenzy and have a great old time with it all!

Have you thought about using PC-BSD so you can just install and go, populate the ports, and edit all of like 2 system files to make a bullet-proof system to use? I hear PF as even developed a couple graphical things for editing PF stuff, although I have not tried or seen PC 1.4 myself.

Actually it is a fairly new article (published yesteday) and it is always interesting to see how a distribution is doing after the hype has settled. Usually it takes some time to get more realistic reviews like this one. Especially when the distribution is Ubuntu.

For me the review on Ars Technica is still a bit too euphemistic. Several major computer magazine published Ubuntu 7.10 on their cover disk and the feedback we get from our readership is not really as enthusiastic as with release 7.04.

This is the Ars review. To some, the only review that matters.

Ubuntu, to be fair their has been precious little reviews of Ubuntu on here, yet *BSD distro's have been in abundance, even Leopard was neglected till release, I has to get my OS News other places. To be fair though Ubuntu has lost some of its impact it initially had I hope we will not see the same thing with Fedora which rightly or wrongly is garnering a following. I hope to see some reviews with it only a week away.

Oddly the article concludes with

rather than Vista Thom cherry picking the bad points from the middle of an article and calling it the conclusion.

Its a shame when news is twisted like this esp when. Its a real valid criticism new technology in Ubuntu is rough around the edges...and some of the not so new stuff, and these matters are worth both pointing out, but shouldn't be done so in a negative manner unless it genuinely warrants it, and I can think of better examples of those.

What makes this review so nice amongst *all* the others is it doesn't focus on its DVD playing ability. It actually looks like someone has looked at it in some depth, and this is from Ars what I would consider to have a Microsoft Bias...albeit with some really good articles.

Oh get over yourself, cyclops. Sure, everybody else is biased and only You Are Right. Only Your words ring truth, and anybody not in full agreement with You must be biased.

That makes total sense.

Not totally lambasting vista does not mean a microsoft bias. Ars is one of the few good tech media sites out there.

Yes it does.

Here is a sample of what you should be telling people about Vista, in order to do them a favour:

http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS4756599078.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307359,00.html
http://blue-gnu.biz/content/windows_wrong_system_security_unconscio...
http://www.channelinsider.com/article/Do+Your+Customers+Hate+Vista+...

If you aren't lambasting Vista to your non-techie friends at every opportunity, then you have failed them and you shouldn't really call yourself their friend.

Tell your non-tech friends not to get a "gas-guzzling, constantly breaking down American junker", but to get a decent car instead.

Friends don't let friends buy Vista.

http://www.computergear.com/friendonlett.html

Edited 2007-11-11 12:36

Thats funny, Vista is the only version of windows I have ever liked. Not enough to shell out 300$ mind you, but enough so that the OEM costs weren't a waste. My work depends on windows software, but back during and before the XP years, i would use Windows for work, and Linux for everything else. Vista is what changed that. XP was dated when it came out, Vista is right behind the mac in terms of providing a solid desktop environment. I'm not saying that all kinds of people havn't had problems with it, but for me (and for my girlfriend, who has the 15" model of the same laptop as me), Vista has been a pretty smooth ride.

To each his own.

Why would you consider Ars to have a Microsoft bias? For one, they were one the first PC enthusiast/hobbyist sites to begin taking Apple seriously again (lengthy, technically-focused articles covering the DP version of OS X going back to the late 90s).

It's also rather silly to suggest that a site with (at least) half a dozen individual editors is biased. Yes, if you read an article there by Evil_Merlin, it will have a Microsoft bias - and if you read a John Siracusa or Jacqueline Cheunq article, it will have a pro-Apple bias (and if - for some unimaginable reason - you happen to read a Jeremy Reimer article, it will probably have a pro-Amiga bias).

The worst you can accurately say about ArsTechnica's editors is that they have a diverse range of biases.

And you are there, matching them one for one, with posts entitled "Enough!". The reviews are varied. You, however, sound like a broken record. Minus one for you... again. Because at this point, you are effectively off-topic.

Edited 2007-11-08 00:23

IMO he's totally ON-topic. It's YAUR (yet another Ubuntu review), right? Criticizing articles is one of the purposes of the comments section, right? So why not criticize the fact that the web is full of fanboy Ubuntu reviews? I mean, c'mon, it's not like Ubuntu is the second coming of Christ. Heck, it's not even the best distro there is. Yet, every time a new version is released, those fanboyish reviews spring up everywhere, telling us how great an improvement this new release is over the old one. Essentially, all Ubuntu does is putting together some FOSS apps, adding some half-*ssed attempts at GUI configuration tools plus some artwork (which, to be fair, doesn't look too bad).

Now, I hear some people say "This is what most distros do." Not quite, folks.
1) Most decent distros don't try to imitate Windows, which is a good thing.
2) They give credit where credit is due, while Ubuntu deliberately fails to give proper credit to Debian. Check out their website, to stumble upon the word "Debian" some searching is required. NO Debian on the front page, NO Debian on the "What is Ubuntu?" page. Using other projects' work and not even mentioning them - How "human".
3) Other distros actually support FOSS. Contrary to all propagandistic claims, Launchpad still is proprietary. To quote a blogger: "How on EARTH can you say you're a free software supporter but not release your own code?"
'nuff said.

There's more, but the above points already provide enough evidence that Ubuntu/Canonical is up to no good.

Err, no. Editorial complains go to me or the crew list BY EMAIL. That's how OSNews works. You can discuss the content of the article freely in the comments' section, but not the editorial policy.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

1. Can you explain to me how Ubuntu imitates windows, because it seems more macish to me. You are dead wrong besides, there are many distros that try to emulate windows. Linspire being at the forefront. you are even more in error, because Novell's slab menu looks strikingly similar to a certain redmond derived menu, don't you think? As far as I know Windows doesn't have two panels not to say this wouldn't help with all the crap people install in the system tray). Last I heard windows installs very little of you hardware out of the box. I don't remember windows letting me install off of a live cd. I'm pretty sure I don't recall an office suite coming with windows, nor a photo manipulation app.
If ubutnu si trying to "be like windows", then any gnome based distro is trying to "be like windows". So you can count redhat in there as well as any distro that heppens to have gnome on it, because Ubuntu packages an almost pure (with a few addons) gnome.

2. Its not secret that ubuntu uses debian packages as its primary source. What credit are you talking would you rather Ubuntu be called Ubuntudebian. A lotof the bad blood between Ubuntu and debian has more to do with the siphoning of developers and very little with credit, because at the end of the day the credit goes to the packager mainteainer, programmer, not the distro.

3. Launhpad is proprietary, Novell closed development of compiz to work on it (they released it though =, but how fickle are people's memories), not long ago Yast was closed source. you seem to think that Lauchpad cou;dn't be opened at any given time. Besides what is so special abut launchpad that isn't already available elsewhere and as open as a man's fly in a latrine.

Right now youa re just on the verge of sounding like a troll. I always wonder why when something is popular all of sudden you get chumps like these spouting hate. Whatever. Use wahtever you fell like using, nobody is forcing you to even consider Ubuntu at all. Use Fedora, use Suse, use whatever makes you feel comfortable but don't go bashing a whole community based on your bias.

1) Ubuntu is a click-click-click distro, aimed at the Would-switch-if-Linux-wouldn't-be-so-hard-to-learn Windows user. You're right though, Gnome's interface is more like Mac. Nothing new here.
2) I didn't request some stupid name change. But most derivatives are plain honest about their roots. Look at ubuntu.com's frontpage: "Ubuntu is a community developed, linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers." Several points worth noticing here. I'm sure most people think it's nit-picky, but the wording tells you a thing or two about Canonical's intentions.
1. "community developed" - Does that mean every person that's part of the "community" (whatever that means) automatically becomes a developer? Suggests an openness that just isn't there. Moreover, if there's a "community", who are the non-community guys, and how come they locked themselves out of the development process? The wording truly is weird.
2. "linux-based" - What!? Wrong spelling! It's called "Linux", with the first letter being CAPITALIZED. Coincidence? I'm afraid not. Everybody knows how to spell _that_ word, and I'm sure content on the front page is proof-read multiple times. So why is it lowercase? Psychological reasons. They want "Ubuntu" to stand out, not "linux" (even Firefox' spell check corrects me here). But who cares, Ubuntu is all that matters, who cares if it's based on that... well... erm... cough... "linux" thingy or whatever they call it. Go figure...
3. "operating system" - Why the heck don't they use the word "distribution"? Answer: Ubuntu is aimed at the average clicky-clicky Windows user (repeating myself here), who may not even know the word "distribution". Additionally - and this adds to the evidence that Ubuntu seeks to hide its Debian heritage - "distribution" would suggest that Ubuntu isn't special at all, just one of the currently 368 active distros listed on distrowatch.com. A Debian derivative, not a product made from scratch. And yes, I know that there are some other distros using the word "operating system" too, but it leaves a completely different taste when used by Canonical.
3) So you wish to compare Canonical's shady practices to Novell's, who signed a patent agreement with Microsoft and are the driving force behind Mono? Compiz is a waste of developer resources, but sadly, open-source GUI development is more about copying Windows/Mac stuff than innovation. And of course there are plenty of alternatives to Launchpad, so why did they create it in the first place? VERY suspicious, and the reasons are clear as day. Do some research.

Well, I can assure you I'm not a troll (using that word never is a good idea), but very concerned about the behavior of Mark S. and his Canonical. And I definitely am not the only one. I also did not bash the "community", and my "bias" is critical thinking and careful observation. BTW, not too long ago I've been an Ubuntu user, too. The main reason for leaving Ubuntu for something much better (Arch Linux in that case) was the lack of quality found in Canonical's product.

Edited 2007-11-08 17:33

"And you are there, matching them one for one, with posts entitled "Enough!". The reviews are varied. You, however, sound like a broken record. Minus one for you... again. Because at this point, you are effectively off-topic."

I sound like a broken record? What sounds like a broken record are the myriad of Ubuntu reviews that all essentially say the same thing. They monotonously describe the booting of the live CD, the installation (which hasn't changed significantly since Ubuntu's inaugural release) and then the desktop experience. The reviewer then blathers on about his or her personal problems with the distribution and then wraps up with a paragraph or two about how wonderful Ubuntu is for newbies and Linux in general. Pardon me while I puke! Oh, and don't get me wrong: I'm an Ubuntu user myself. I just don't need to see an in-depth review by every Tom, Dick and Harry with a Blog!

See this post under the current story:

http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?283485

It is a very good reason why multiple reviews of the same product are beneficial and desirable. Individual reviewers have limited hardware on which to test, and use the OS in different ways. They have different expectations, and different opinions based upon a combination of those expectations, their own personal termperament, and the hardware that they have.

Those uninterested in the distro or OS, on the other hand, are perfectly free to use their eye muscles to deflect their eyes slightly down the page and skip the story. You have expended a great deal *more* effort than that to complain about something for which there is simply *no* valid reason for you to be bothered. Which makes me wonder what your real motivations might be.

For the record, I try to apply this attitude to *all* the stories here which reasonably belong in this forum. It does not matter if it is about an OS I like, or an OS that I don't. It's about respecting the fact that on a site like this, devoted to diversity in computing, different people, at different times, are going to find different stories helpful and interesting.

Do you have a problem with that?

Edited 2007-11-08 17:39

What happens when its your problem? You are writing a review based on what hardware you have. If it doesn't work, I'd rather know, so if i have the same hardware I can research for solutions before i install or choose not to install in the first place.



There not paid to research hardware that will give the best(or most popular)review.

It is no good for anyone, including Ubuntu, to stick our heads in the sand and just ignore the issues. We need to know whats wrong or it wont get fixed.

Btw, where is your research?

There is a problem with saying "my hardware doesn't work properly with Ubuntu" then implying that Ubuntu is not ready for general use because of that. The problem is that you are relying upon anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is great for suggesting that there may be a problem, but does nothing to prove that there is a problem.

Now if you are looking to see if Ubuntu will work with your particular piece of hardware, then great. But search forums, mailing lists, blogs, personal websites, support databases and the such. You will have a much larger cross section of people using a much larger cross section of hardware. Chances are somebody will have your answer. But suggesting that you should use general reviews of Ubuntu to see if it will work on your particular machine is just plain crazy because you have a much smaller pool of opinions. And given that they don't do their research to see how reliable it is over all, their opinions are just that.



I did it before purchasing my last computer. Which is likely why it works wonderfully with Linux and is a bit flakey with Windows.

But suggesting that you should use general reviews of Ubuntu to see if it will work on your particular machine is just plain crazy [/q]

Why is it crazy? That is what a review is! Sheesh!

And that is the real problem hey, your worried the review states that Ubuntu is not ready for general use.



No, what I meant was, where can others find your research so it can help them to do the same.

Is looking for the hardware compatibility list that hard?

For updated to date info it can be. From the ubuntu Hardware Support site about my board:



Not up to date, doesn't give a true indication of how well it works and incorrect about sata drives on windows, you only need the floppy for raid setups.



If his hardware works wonderfully with Linux, why then would you not like to share this with everyone? Instead of crappy out of date lists, there could be actual full setups to direct users not only to buy the most compatible hardware available, but the hardware that runs best under Linux.

But search forums, mailing lists, blogs, personal websites, support databases and the such.

Ideally this valid for whatever OS you are running. Therefore i'm a frequent visitor of www.phoronix.com amongst other sites that specifically deal with GNU/Linux, Solaris soft and hardware issues.

apt-get install compizconfig-gnome

You have missed the point.

Just because there are config tools available out there, does not mean we shouldn't bother improving the default tools.

KDE vs. Gnome - again.

I think, Gnome tries to set up their Desktop in a way which works well for most, but denies them easy configurability.

KDE tries to let the user configure everything from within the GUI, which enables fast access to "minor" configuration items which are available in Gnome only via the registry (or however it is called).

I for example like KDE better than Gnome, because whenever I tried to use Gnome I at some point hit the wall. Then searching through the internet to find out what registry entries need to be changed costs 10 times more effort, than clicking my way through a KDE config dialog. Gnome is not easily configurable to my way of thinking/working KDE is.

By the way: Can I configure the "open" and "save as" dialogs in Gnome in a way which ALWAYS shows the "folder browser"?

The brown wallpaper with the swirls looks very amateur, the art team on Ubuntu are just not good enough it's that simple.

It is an operating system not a painting you hang on your wall.

Yes and some of the gnome art devs think that way to, thats why I left, looking good is part of the package. why polish the bike if your not going to polish it all?

Yes and some of the gnome art devs think that way to, thats why I left, looking good is part of the package. why polish the bike if your not going to polish it all?

The least part of the package. The part that counts is that it works, who cares if it look good if it doesn't even work properly. Some people make bikes to ride from A to B not to impress people.

On sites like OSNews, there seems to be a small but persistent number of posters who apparently have made it their mission in life to try to post negative comments about any FOSS topics. Linux, Ubuntu, ODF ... it wouldn't matter so much the subject but the fact that the subject is related in some way to free, open software.

The article in question could be saying "here is a fresh new highly-functional OS that comes with a huge array of quality software and it will work without a hitch on your existing machine, and it is free ... both as in freedom and as in gratis" ... and these must-say-something-negative-is-my-mission posters will doubtless find something to pick on.

They might, for example, completely ignore the fact that this new software could save people literally a couple of thousand dollars in the cost of equivalent proprietary software, and instead they would complain bitterly about the color of the easily-changed background image ... as if trying to give the impression that this "failing" were the end of the world and that their opinion made the software offered utterly useless ...

... oh wait. Isn't that where we came in?

You know the spinners are getting desperate when the best criticism they can think of is "the background colour isn't nice".

You are confusing your subjective taste with objective quality.

I happen to agree with him though. The art team for Suse has always been pretty decent. Fedora is on fire, they are doing things which I haven't really seen in other distros at this point. There seems to be a completeness to their artwork. Everything works together well, from the grub menu to the login screen to the desktop itself.

Ubuntu would do well to follow in fedora's footsteps. With the next release the artwork is supposed to be getting a revamp and everything should be much more coherent. Though black and orange is gonna be a stretch, I've seen some wallpapers that make me think they can pull it off.

Funny, I really dislike the Suse artwork while I really like the Ubuntu one. Guess why? Because it's subjective.
I dont care for fancy-a$$ grub screens either, it's there for 5 seconds when you boot. No-one sits around looking at it all day in awe over how great it is.

Even though I disagree (I think it looks fine), I do have to ask the question: who cares about the wallpaper? It is the first, most customized interface element out there. Even computer newbies, casual users and office workers change it, usually within minutes of getting a new PC. I myself usually head over to VladStudio to pick a nice one up, though many people will simply put a picture of their kids or whatnot.

Considering this, Ubuntu's artwork is more than adequate.