There is a general dissent growing at the popularity that Ubuntu enjoys among the Linux users. Considering that Ubuntu has maintained the number one slot at distrowatch.com for a whole year now, the feeling is a bit expected. This article tries to explore what is it that makes Ubuntu so popular among its users and how other linux distributions can take a leaf from ubuntu to effectively leverage their position in the popularity chart.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-25
I think the past articles, and this one is a very low attempt at attacking ubuntu. I pity people who have nothing else to do but to try and attack projects.
And I think you did a poor job understanding what the article meant, if you actually read more than just the title.
the author made valid and arguably objective points in showing how ubuntu became so popular. It's a sensible and semi-scientific writeup containing analysis of the strategies that got ubuntu where it is now.
the title may sound to be no better than a low attempt to you, but it's actual content is on the contrary to those who would actually read it before making remarks on it.
Member since:2006-08-17
Sometimes I am seriously just baffled at how duped all of the Ubuntu fanboys are. You say that Ubuntu contributes patches back to the community like its something special. Its called the GPL. They are legally required to contribute their patches back.
I used Ubuntu for several months trying to figure out what all the fuss was about. There really is nothing special about the product that they have produced. All of the major distributions seem to be just as good as Ubuntu. What they have done that is special is they have convinced a lot of people to work for free by convincing those same people that Ubuntu is about humanity and not about Canonical making a profit.
If you think that Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth are such great humanitarians and all about Open Source, you should take a look into what Canonical spends its development resources on. The majority of their development resources are spent on a product called Launchpad. Launchpad is not open source and when last I checked there were no plans for it to ever be open source. I think that pretty much says it all.
I am wary of rich men that come bearing gifts. Rich men become rich because they like making money, not because they like giving it away. Once they start spending money, well, most the time it is an investment rather than charity.
What makes me wary of Ubuntu is that Canonical does not tell you how they plan to profit off of it (selling technical support to end users is not very profitable, unlike the enterprise) and that they give out free CDs (this reminds me of AOL- give them all free CDs get them using the product and then screw them). It concerns me that so many people are working on it that could be working on Debian or some other distro where you at least know how your work is going to be used.
Member since:2005-06-30
Sorry. This is just too cynical. Shuttleworth and Canonical have categorically stated that Ubuntu will continue to remain free. Not just for the present but for it's lifetime.
Of course they want to make money but it seems clear to me that this is not going to be from home users or even people who use Ubuntu for business purposes if they do not take up additional services, support, etc.
Currently I do not use Ubuntu, and I am not a "fanboy" (one of the most infantile words to be found in discussion forums). I believe the "hype" such as it is comes merely from those who happen to believe it is worth spreading the word about a distro that makes it easy for newcomers to familiarise themselves with Linux, and not from Canonical.
I believe the trolling and flaming comes mainly from those who are either a) jealous of Ubuntu's success, b) ultra-paranoid or overly cynical, c) believe Linux should belong to some kind of Geek elite or d) upset that the source of Ubuntu should be a multi-millionaire instead of some kind of radical, politically-correct, hardcore nerd.
I do not believe Ubuntu is necessarily the best distro nor the most exciting. But it is successful and has brought countless new people to Linux and with largely good experiences at that (unlike my first forays with Red Hat about 3 years ago, which drove me nuts so that I kept it just long enough to struggle for a couple of months, realise that Linux would be something to watch and then uninstall it until I could find a more useable distro).
But I am MORE than tired of seeing the same old garbage surface in the forums every time Ubuntu is mentioned. It is neither the new Massiah nor the Devil incarnate in an OS. It is a very decent Linux distro and installing it will not deliver your soul to some evil force.
Member since:2006-01-17
There really is nothing special about the product that they have produced.
Really? Then perhaps you could recommend me another Debian based distro that will get me the new Gnome as soon as it comes out.
I don't know about others, but for me those two factors trump all.
Member since:2005-07-19
Sometimes I am seriously just baffled at how duped all of the Ubuntu fanboys are. You say that Ubuntu contributes patches back to the community like its something special. Its called the GPL. They are legally required to contribute their patches back.
No they are not. The GPL requires you give the source to the people you give the binaries to, it says nothing about sending changes back upstream. That is purely voluntary.
Member since:2005-07-06
If you think that Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth are such great humanitarians and all about Open Source, you should take a look into what Canonical spends its development resources on. The majority of their development resources are spent on a product called Launchpad.
Please read about The Shuttleworth Foundation -->> http://www.tsf.org.za/
The amount of social, free, volunter work that foundation has done for the under privilaged people of south africa is enormous. Shuttleworth also doesn't simply throw money at the problem. If you read on you will see that what he's trying to do is create a sustainable ecosystem of free software, free/cheap education, equality and freedom for poor of that country.
Member since:2005-07-06
What makes me wary of Ubuntu is that Canonical does not tell you how they plan to profit off of it (selling technical support to end users is not very profitable, unlike the enterprise) and that they give out free CDs (this reminds me of AOL- give them all free CDs get them using the product and then screw them).
For your argument on end-user / enterprise support and issue of not telling on plan to profit off of it... refer here --> http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
Edited 2006-08-18 10:16
Member since:2005-11-02
The majority of their development resources are spent on a product called Launchpad. Launchpad is not open source and when last I checked there were no plans for it to ever be open source.
From the Launchpad FAQ at:
https://launchpad.net/faq
"Is Launchpad open source? Will it be?
Our goal is to release all of Launchpad as free software, though it will take some time (potentially, years) before that happens.
We are doing so in a piecemeal approach. Parts of Launchpad have already been released as free software where they would be particularly useful to other projects. And very few, if any, Launchpad modifications to upstream code are not immediately published to those upstream projects."
So there are plans for it to be eventually fully open source.
Member since:
2006-07-24
I've personally and commercially used various OSes and distributions. I think the past articles, and this one is a very low attempt at attacking ubuntu. I pity people who have nothing else to do but to try and attack projects.
I've used various systems from *BSD to major linux distributions, and I must say ubuntu is very slick for even my friendly windows admins.
I really don't know why some of these people are talking bad about Ubuntu. The Ubuntu team does write code as well. Ubuntu might be a fork of debian, but the team does make their distribution available for installing not only a desktop, but server as well. The server install allows anyone to quickly install a LAMP server from the boot options.
What the past few articles(and this one) forget to mention the ubuntu team has made the installer easy, quick, and clean for every user. I personally use ubuntu at the corporate level for many computers in the building. Ubuntu has the most common packages anyone will ever need.
What the other article I read on the package count.. The reviewers are forgetting to tell you Ubuntu doesn't package every perl-, python-, ruby-, *language here* package from debian. The last article I read should be "what debian doesn't want you to know".
Please, people.. stop trolling on a perfectly good ditro with good hard working people behind the project.
Ubuntu has been made popular and with the craze spawned haters are there are with Google. I personally see the ubuntu project as a good alternative for the desktop(and server), and will continue to inform others of Linux, *BSD, and distros making headway in development.