Linked by Jeremy Wells on Tue 8th Feb 2005 08:05 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu For over six years I have been hunting for a Linux distro that would allow me to replace my Windows installation. I've tried many versions of RedHat and Mandrake, and more recently, Gnoppix, Kanotix, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Knoppix. In my evaluations, I would start with high hopes that the latest and greatest distro would install smoothly, support my hardware, and create a genuinely usable system, but none of them really worked--until now. I recently came across the first distro that satisfied all my requirements: Ubuntu.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
@mattb
by Mario Giammarco on Tue 8th Feb 2005 18:50 UTC

>>Yes I am very annoyed: why on earth I should be patient when they came out with a debian testing a little modified and polished and nothing more?

> why would this annoy you?

I was replying to a person , read the subject.


> i cant count the amount of distros that have been hyped to within an inch of their life. welcome to the world of linux, glad you could join us.

Sorry but I am in linux world from a long time: when there was no hype and new distro were really "new". And when people started to hype redhat5 I tried it only to discover that "man printf" not work: I steered clearly from it and started using debian. Hype is for the windows world, in linux world it hurts me a lot.

>-I like forks

ubuntu isnt a fork. the universe repos could be called a branching, cause the changes are made to be rolled into the official debian packages.

Wow now you are discussing about the meaning of a word. Well, if it is a branch why they use a different versioning scheme so you cannot use debian repositories in ubuntu apt?

>-but a fork should add more value (real value)

like security updates?

No comment. BTW: also debian has security updates I suppose it is not necessary to start a new distro just for this.

> >-you cannot call a distribution "a desktop distribution" just because it includes gnome

my definition of "desktop distribution" would be a linux distribution that includes desktop software. what is yours?

Terrible: so all distributions in the world are desktop distributions.
Try to raise the bar please.

> >-you cannot call a distribution "a powerful server distribution" just because it includes apache

>my definition of "server distribution" would be a linux distribution that includes server software. what is yours?

Terrible: so all distributions in the world are server distributions.

Try to raise the bar please.