Linked by Shahar Weiss on Thu 1st Mar 2007 18:58 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu I've been an Arch user for roughly 3 years. I'm pretty much familiar with it all - The way it boots, its configuration and its package management. I've also heard a lot of good things about Ubuntu, and wanted to try it for a long time. So, two weeks ago, I took the plunge. These are my findings.
Thread beginning with comment 217722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by devnet on Thu 1st Mar 2007 21:13 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu vs. Arch"
devnet
Member since:
2007-01-16

"Ubuntu is aimed at new Linux users and tries, when it can, to do the most sensible thing it can."

Um...NO. It's not aimed at new Linux users. It's aimed at DESKTOP Linux users...Ubuntu isn't easy as pie for new users..

Out of the gate:
1. They can't play music, they can't play video
2. No flash, no Java
3. Gnome isn't an easy transfer from Windows...which is what most are accustomed to.

SimplyMEPIS is a better solution to this...or PCLinuxOS. But Ubuntu is NEVER about NEW users. You need to get your thinking cap on.

Forcing a user to install something like Easy Ubuntu or Automatix is lame and means that the distro isn't "aimed at new users"

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by butters on Thu 1st Mar 2007 21:57 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I agree that Ubuntu isn't easy enough for new users, but I don't buy your explanation that Ubuntu is for "desktop Linux users." After all, most desktop users need items 1 and 2 on your list. I also don't buy item 3. GNOME isn't really any more different than Windows than KDE is. I scoff at the suggestion that just because KDE has the K Menu at the bottom left and GNOME has its Application Menu on the top left (by default on some but not all distros), that KDE is more "Windows-like." They're both significantly different from Windows and will require some amount of adjustment. I'm not going to dwell on this in the interest of avoiding the usual flamewar.

My explanation is that Ubuntu's direct markets are the enthusiast and power-user crowds. The ones that love Linux and don't mind a little tinkering here and there, but not the hobbyists that are willing to really get their hands dirty to achieve the most optimal system. Ubuntu is also positioned as a superior project infrastructure for supporting derivatives with different target markets in mind. In essence, Ubuntu is taking everything that made Debian such a great mother distribution and repackaging these qualities with an emphasis on timely releases and a focus on Intel platforms (plus SPARC servers).

My theory is that all of the Debian-based distros that want the "easy as pie" market will be deriving from Ubuntu within 18 months. MEPIS/SimplyMEPIS and Linspire/Freespire are already onboard, PCLinuxOS and Xandros can't be far behind, and I have a sneaking suspicion that Mandriva might even kick its RPM habit if things keep progressing as they are.

We have a three-horse race shaping up in mainstream Linux land, and this consolidation is what Linux needs to become even more compelling for proprietary ISVs.

Edited 2007-03-01 21:58

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by moleskine on Thu 1st Mar 2007 22:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
moleskine Member since:
2005-11-05

We have a three-horse race shaping up in mainstream Linux land, and this consolidation is what Linux needs to become even more compelling for proprietary ISVs.

Interesting. That's what a lot of folks seem to think at the moment. In some ways, it could be a two-horse race, with .rpm for the enterprise and .deb for soho (or mainly so). Or a two-horse race anyway: the one that's vulnerable is SuSE, since it comes a long way second to Red Hat in the enterprise and a long way second to Debian-base distros (if you add them all together) everywhere else. On the other hand, racing is well-known for doping and already certain "trainers" from Redmond have been spotted skulking around the paddock ...

I did try to install Arch a few weeks ago as a tester but gave up when the installer said I had to consult a text file then add in the details of what time zone I'm in by hand. Just my 2 cents, but a distro that wants more than hardcore niche appeal has to do a bit better than that. It's like asking someone to crank a handle before using the telephone. I'm having more fun with Zenwalk.

Edited 2007-03-01 23:02

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by SEJeff on Thu 1st Mar 2007 23:21 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

You might try Ubuntu again when Feisty is released. By default, when Feisty attempts to play an audio file it doesn't have codecs for, it searches for and displays the package needed for the proper codec. Not only that, after the package is installed, it restarts the media.

The magic part is that is works and works well. Here is a few pictures of the process:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28313023@N00/375559390/in/set-72157594...

When you install windows, it does not come with flash or java. As a matter of fact (unless your OEM pre-installs them), you have to install them after the fact.

In Ubuntu, firefox will prompt if you want to install java or flash and it seems to work fine. Also, you can install both from the repositories using synaptic or apt (the command line) very easily.

My computer ignorant parents seemed to have 0 problems switching from Windows XP to gnome. The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

So there, everything you said has been debunked by someone who actually uses the system.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Ubuntu vs. Arch
by wooptoo on Fri 2nd Mar 2007 13:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Ubuntu vs. Arch"
wooptoo Member since:
2006-02-09

The only real issue is that my father needed to be taught how to resize images in the gimp.

I suggest gthumb (image viewer) which has some basic/simpler image manipulation options built-in.

Edited 2007-03-02 13:53

Reply Parent Score: 2