Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 11th Mar 2006 21:26 UTC, submitted by Maarten Vanheuverswyn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The 5th preview release of Ubuntu Dapper Drake is out on the mirrors. As usual, there are both install and live CD's for PowerPC, x86, and x86-64. "We are now in the final stages of Dapper Drake development. Everything is stabilizing, and Ubuntu 6.04 will certainly be a top-notch professional OS. Now that all of the lower level improvements have been made, it is time to close the hood and rub on a coat of wax. With Flight 5 comes a new and improved Human look-and-feel, a few new GUI power tools, and much more." Update: Screenshot tour.
Thread beginning with comment 103551
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What makes Ubuntu better?
by ma_d on Sat 11th Mar 2006 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What makes Ubuntu better?"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

RPM has a lot more overrides, and it doesn't tell you later you're stupid for having used them.
Dpkg will constantly tell you its broken and you need to remove that package you overrode it on before it'll install new packages. This is why I hate deb's. I'll take rpm over deb any day of the week, it's a far more flexible system.

And yes, you can hose your system with a bad rpm. That's why I like it!

But Ubuntu is aimed at inexperienced users as much as experienced once. So deb is likely a much better choice. There also aren't nearly so many bad debs out there as the debian repo's have long been the most complete.

That's why I like RPM over deb. And for the record, I like a good slackware tarball even better ;) . But my favourite package format has been arch's. Pacman isn't terribly robust, but oh well, it also doesn't think it's smarter than me!

Reply Parent Score: 2

Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

But Ubuntu is aimed at inexperienced users as much as experienced once

You gotta be kidding. I tried to install Ubuntu earlier this year with the online manual, and it was way too complicated to me. I gave up.

I guess it is a distro aimed at developpers, but definately not for the average joe user.

Reply Parent Score: 1

houp Member since:
2005-07-06

You gotta be kidding. I tried to install Ubuntu earlier this year with the online manual, and it was way too complicated to me. I gave up.

I guess it is a distro aimed at developpers, but definately not for the average joe user.


So maybe you should contact Ubuntu team and say about your expiriences with installation. I think they want an avarage joe users to be able to install and use Ubuntu. Ubuntu isn't rather targeted at developers IMHO.

Anyway it seems that a graphics installer is on the way, so installation should be easier in upcoming releases...

Edited 2006-03-11 23:41

Reply Parent Score: 1

Madtinkerer Member since:
2006-01-07

<You gotta be kidding. I tried to install Ubuntu earlier this year with the online manual, and it was way too complicated to me. I gave up.

I guess it is a distro aimed at developpers, but definately not for the average joe user.>

I've got to disagree with you on this one. Ubuntu is a great distro for newbies. I've had friends with no linux experience install it with just the smallest amount of help from myself - explaining where to find network info, for example. I find the installer to be simple to use but perhaps in need of a facelift to make it more appealing to non-linux users. You should try it again. The forums are a great place to look for help for your installation problems.

Edited 2006-03-12 03:01

Reply Parent Score: 1

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Reply Parent Score: 1

el3ktro Member since:
2006-01-10

What? Installing Ubuntu is as easy as making a free partition, putting the CD in, answer a few simple questions & your done. If you don't know how to partition your harddrive, then don't blame Linux for this. I agree that partitioning the harddrive is often the most difficult part of installing Linux, but this has nothing to do with Linux, it's because most people want to install it in parallel to Windows first. It wouldn't be different the other way round. Sorry I don't want to be rude but if you can't install Ubuntu than you also can't install Windows - both are the same easy or hard to install. Where exactly did you give up? Perhaps we're able to help you and you can try again.


Tom

Reply Parent Score: 4

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Ma_d,

Re: "RPM has a lot more overrides, and it doesn't tell you later you're stupid for having used them. Dpkg will constantly tell you its broken and you need to remove that package you overrode it on before it'll install new packages. This is why I hate deb's. I'll take rpm over deb any day of the week, it's a far more flexible system."

Are you referring to dependency checker which is available in package managers such as YAST that also checks for digital signatures? Unless you're comment regarding "more overrides" refers to using the force command to install packages. If so then I would not recommend this method to someone installing software, especially someone new to Linux.

Re: "And yes, you can hose your system with a bad rpm. That's why I like it!"

I use SUSE Linux a RPM based distribution and I found your comment not logical. An end user would not typically want to corrupt their data by intentionally force installing a binary package that they know may cause havoc on their system. Anyway it is possible to repair a RPM based distribution which I'm sure is also possible on Debian based distributions such as Ubuntu Linux.

Re: "That's why I like RPM over deb. And for the record, I like a good slackware tarball even better ;) . But my favourite package format has been arch's. Pacman isn't terribly robust, but oh well, it also doesn't think it's smarter than me!"

No matter if a consumer chooses to use a RPM based distribution such as SUSE Linux or a Debian based one such as Ubuntu Linux I'm sure most of us would agree using a binary package (ie: packagename.rpm) is similar to using "packagename.exe" for Windows. Though ease of use is unlikely when choosing to use tarballs or compiling from source. The reason being command scripts are rarely if ever needed on modern Linux distributions that provide a simple GUI package manager to ease installation and removel of binary packages.

Edited 2006-03-12 08:03

Reply Parent Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I'm sure most of us would agree using a binary package (ie: packagename.rpm) is similar to using "packagename.exe" for Windows.

OK, I see some similarity. But the RPM gives much greater freedom. You can list the files in an rpm and even view the scripts that show what the RPM will do to your system. There is even rpm2cpio that lets you extract individual files and examine them.

rpm -qlp package.rpm
rpm -qp --scripts package.rpm
rpm2cpio package.rpm | cpio ...

But with a Windows setup.exe, what can you do but just trust it?

Reply Parent Score: 1