OSNews:

It isn't bad, selling software in a past

donotreply@osnews.com (glebone) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:35:00 GMT

It isn't bad, selling software in a past, now it is reasonable to sell services (google and even apple now do it) So, ubuntu is on right way....

Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (casuto) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:46:00 GMT

Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

RE: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (r_a_trip) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:49:00 GMT

Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

Care to explain where you base this on? What makes Ubuntu 8.10 worse than other distro's? Or is it just that Ubuntu is popular and therefore attracts irrational ire...

< speeling korrected >Edited 2008-10-28 08:52 UTC

RE: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (mmrezaie) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:52:00 GMT

You are a pig with lipstick! ;-)

RE: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:04:00 GMT

Babe was a pig and he'd still kick your ass. Looked good in lipstick too.

Comment by nxsty

donotreply@osnews.com (NxStY) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:11:00 GMT

The ubuntu devs are trying to find out why:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-October/026794.h...

Also, phoronix is goin to rerun the test with fedora to see if it's also slower.

suse

donotreply@osnews.com (collinm) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:11:00 GMT

before novell buy suse, it sell a lot of box... so surely that continue now

maybe if it polish more their distribution, they will made more money...

imagine if ubuntu begin to code for linux... it will lose more money

RE: Comment by nxsty

donotreply@osnews.com (r_a_trip) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:29:00 GMT

Also, phoronix is goin to rerun the test with fedora to see if it's also slower.

That is good news. It will be interesting to see if it is an Ubuntu specific problem or if it is more widespread. It would be a shame if the overall efficiency GNU/Linux as a whole would decrease.

RE: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (DevL) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:39:00 GMT

I like pigs. However, I don't like you or your meaningless comments. Go away!

RE[2]: Comment by nxsty

donotreply@osnews.com (sakeniwefu) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:51:00 GMT

There's speculation that the performance degradation could be due to better power management in recent versions of Linux. What's good for power consumption is not good for performance. A single checkbox in a panel could solve that.
Less likely yet easily fixed would be that Ubuntu is using progressively dumber compiler options for their files.
Of course, truth could be darker, with new big iron features and optimizations harming overall Desktop performance, but we aren't allowed to suggest that.

RE[2]: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (RawMustard) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:52:00 GMT

I dunno, I just upgraded from feisty 7.04 64bit to hardy 64bit after 2 years on feisty and hardy is a pig. Removed it and installed Debian lenny and it too is a pig and I'm talking about minimal installs running fluxbox and no gnome, where as on feisty I was running a full blown gnome.

It's got me stuffed how painfully slow they both are and cumbersome compared to feisty. I'm thinking of going back, but a lot of programs won't compile on feisty anymore

At the moment I'm sticking with lenny because it's got potential and is easier than ubuntu to keep up to date but it's not a patch on 7.04 feisty! The poster is correct, Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with lipstick on.Edited 2008-10-28 10:00 UTC

Very direct

donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:08:00 GMT

Shuttleworth has always been very direct and he still is. And that's why is one of the few figures in OSS that I like to read.

Ubuntu vs others...

donotreply@osnews.com (Loki_999) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:14:00 GMT

While i appreciate what Ubuntu has done for the profile of Linux i just cant bring myself to use it. Ive tried versions 6, 7, and 8 and all variants... well, something just doesnt sit well with me, i really cant explain it. Same goes more or less for distros based on Ubuntu.

Debian i really like (so why dont i like Ubuntu?) and run it on my MacBook, and at home and work i run Mandriva which i really love. SuSE has also been a favourite of mine over the years.

Iv'e played with many distributions, and its only Ubuntu that i have this thing with.

Anyone else find this?

RE[2]: Ubuntu 8.x is a pig with a lipstick

donotreply@osnews.com (h3rman) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:17:00 GMT

What makes Ubuntu 8.10 worse than other distro's? Or is it just that Ubuntu is popular and therefore attracts irrational ire...

It is.

Some of us in the Linux crowd use their cool linuxness as an extension of their personality. They feel special using something most others don't. Ubuntu and its success in making Linux mainstream is a big threat to that.

On the other hand, (meaningful) criticism is good. Having only cheerleaders won't be the right incentive for further improvement. Ubuntu does have its weak spots.

The money is in a true purpose built system

donotreply@osnews.com (RawMustard) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:20:00 GMT

That's where I reckon there's money to be made out of the linux desktop. Not and eepox with xandrone installed or a half hearted attempted Dell with Ubuntu, but a true purpose built box with full linux support, similar to what Apple has done.

If I could buy a quality and I mean QUALITY box with a free as in libre linux installation and a good repository behind it like Debian's and at a reasonable cost, I wouldn't bother running the linux gauntlet every year and tempting fate with new software and hardware, I'd just buy a tried and proven linux box!

Is it so hard for business people to get it?

Comment by razor85

donotreply@osnews.com (razor85) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:30:00 GMT

on my machine, intrepid feels just faster than hardy but also feels slower than feisty. Like someone already said, those IO blocks kills. Also the processor is always working (managed to reduce that by a bit) and gnome takes ages more to start even when they are marketing its performance boost, it feels slow.

The Brown Stuff Would Always Hit the Fan

donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:20:00 GMT

I think the brown stuff was always going to hit the fan eventually over Ubuntu, and while there hasn't been enough to burn the motor out yet it has certainly destabilised it a bit. They've suddenly started talking about revenue and profits. Unless Canonical does something it has got about a couple of years left to it, if it's lucky, until it goes the same way as other bold Linux desktop companies and its source of income loses interest. No one can afford to keep putting money into a business like that, no matter how deep the pockets are.

Regarding Ubuntu 8.10's performance, they do say they use the ATI drivers in those benchmarks so you're never quite sure what effect that will have. From those graphs though it seems as though you have no idea what you'll be getting. While many successive desktop versions will get slower with new features added, those benchmarks have nothing to do with new features.

Mark Shuttleworth's answer is "I don't think anyone can make money from the Linux desktop."

Cheers Mark. Thanks for the admission of defeat I knew was coming for a long time. This really translates as "Ubuntu isn't sustainable as a desktop, we can't increase its usage to any sort of critical mass and we've failed".

Instead, Shuttleworth sees "The only way to build business around software is with [added costs] services."

That's what they all say when they've run out of ideas. What services, and what makes you so different to other companies that already have a service subscription model? No desktop Linux company that says they are selling services has ever gained any sort of traction, and if you're talking about the server and corporate side of things then you're trying to break on to Red Hat's turf there. Even Novell is finding that very tough going, and I don't see room for yet another company packaging up all the same software, doing nothing different and saying "Pay us for support". I can't see any justifiable way that will fly.

If they could make Ubuntu a creditable Windows Server competitor then that would count for a lot, but even Red Hat doesn't want to do that, Novell wants to pretend they can concede ground to Windows Server and everything will be OK and no one seems confident that it could be done. It's the only way though, and only then will the desktop market really open up to you on a firmer footing beyond the realm of Ubuntu fanboys.

He said, "I've heard creditable reports of Microsoft offering XP at no cost to OEMs."

They might well have done initially to some OEMs selling Netbooks, but once they start relying on XP more then watch that price start to go up. Those deals are very heavily fenced off by Microsoft. It's a defensive tactic and doesn't represent any shift at all from Microsoft. To think so is a mistake.

Azure, which will compete with Amazon's EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud), won't be a product, its resources will be sold as a service.

Azure is about testing the waters in a market where Microsoft don't have a presence but feel they should. It's anyone's guess whether it will be flexible enough to attract people using EC2, and Microsoft certainly won't allow it to encroach on Windows Server or any other products Microsoft sells. Windows and Office licenses are still Microsoft's bread and butter and that probably won't change ever.

It's certainly not a signal that any sort of services business from Canonical will actually work, so how SJVN makes that connection I have no idea. Mind you, it's SJVN so it's no surprise.

It makes me think, yet again, that the smartest man in the open-source business world night well be Shuttleworth.

Errrrrr, that's a bit of a stretch because I don't see too much evidence for it from the above.