OSNews

I'm with you! I really don't like Ubuntu in the least to start with, and really can't stand all these endless reviews for every single release. Just because Ubuntu is popular, that does not mean their level of quality of code is worth a stitch!

A Distribution which is what Ubuntu is, at the end of the day is simply a packaging of many *predominantly* open source programs typically on the Linux kernel, in a cohesive fashion.

Thats not to say they don't code, but thats what they do. I'm not saying they don't backport or cherry pick patches for their choice of programs.

A review of Ubuntu in this instance is not just a review of Ubuntu its a snapshot of the ever evolving landscape that is open-source rather than alternative anti-capitalist that supply a static platform for years.

If you look at the link provided http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu which I only choose because it shows the version of the programs that make ub the *distribution* you see a move from OpenOffice 2.2 to 2.3 a version that brings aditional stability and speed to Document editing on Linux, you see Linux move from 2.6.20 to 2.6.22 (oddly 2.6.23 and I know fedora has this) which brings about as much as anything wireless for many etc etc.

The only thing I see that is missing is the latest xorg-server, and I suspect that is more to do with the binary drivers than anything else, that and the rather shaky release that it was.

So which *code* are you referring to.

I am talking about the code that they develop from the Debian unstable branch, they break and it becomes unusable, work on and send it back up stream to Debian and eventually because usable, so they do coding for that. Plus the changes in the code they make to KDE menu system, not just the Kmenu, and XFCE, changing the XFCE menu from the source code defaults. So there is that coding as well. So if someone thinks Ubuntu is an assembly of packages, ahhh no, not that simple, they do get into the source code, hence the major stability issues with Ubuntu, compared to using all the same packages and DE in Debian. I am curious to find out even if Ubuntu develops on their last release, or if they dump it all and build again from the unstable branch for the next release.

After the record, I'm starting to get tired of Linux in general anyways. Getting sick of the Linux kernel, even Andrew Morton has talked about shutting down development for 2 months and do nothing but patches and fixes for those 2 months. I'm an OpenBSD person, FreeBSD second. There are things with the BSD kernels that I lie doing and recompile, and editing system files, that I don't know how to do in Linux, I can even work with PF no sweat, but I have no clue how to work on IPTables. And also, I am more than happy working without any graphical menus, graphical desktop. I can honestly spend all only using Lynx for browsing, Finch for chatting, and Sendmail for email. As much as I am really excited about KDE4 as I am a KDE fan, if what I do does not required graphics, I default back into Lynx and keep everything in text-only mode. So this is why I've gotten tired of Linux and its distributions in general, and I think Ubuntu is one of the worst ones of all the distributions.

Since I prefer BSD everyday, I find it it eaasier to work with, and for me I think OpenBSD is very logically designed for it's network structure and system files very easy to maintain, when I looked at a couple of Ubuntu releases, I seriously wondered why this distro is even around. You see, I'm about networking and multi-system setups, I don't use it for me and my computer, or for me and my laptop, but I am about what are my options for setting up a server, a remote storage unit, my laptop to remotely log into multiple systems, and setting up a dedicated system for people I know to use as their own remote storage server with their own logins and their own directories. And so I look at Ubuntu as a play toy, and not for people who are into true technical things, get into the guts and source files. I would recommend Fedora, openSUSE, CentOS, or Debian over Ubuntu any day.

Actually it is a fairly new article (published yesteday) and it is always interesting to see how a distribution is doing after the hype has settled. Usually it takes some time to get more realistic reviews like this one. Especially when the distribution is Ubuntu.

For me the review on Ars Technica is still a bit too euphemistic. Several major computer magazine published Ubuntu 7.10 on their cover disk and the feedback we get from our readership is not really as enthusiastic as with release 7.04.

This is the Ars review. To some, the only review that matters.

Ubuntu, to be fair their has been precious little reviews of Ubuntu on here, yet *BSD distro's have been in abundance, even Leopard was neglected till release, I has to get my OS News other places. To be fair though Ubuntu has lost some of its impact it initially had I hope we will not see the same thing with Fedora which rightly or wrongly is garnering a following. I hope to see some reviews with it only a week away.

Oddly the article concludes with

rather than Vista Thom cherry picking the bad points from the middle of an article and calling it the conclusion.

Its a shame when news is twisted like this esp when. Its a real valid criticism new technology in Ubuntu is rough around the edges...and some of the not so new stuff, and these matters are worth both pointing out, but shouldn't be done so in a negative manner unless it genuinely warrants it, and I can think of better examples of those.

What makes this review so nice amongst *all* the others is it doesn't focus on its DVD playing ability. It actually looks like someone has looked at it in some depth, and this is from Ars what I would consider to have a Microsoft Bias...albeit with some really good articles.

Oh get over yourself, cyclops. Sure, everybody else is biased and only You Are Right. Only Your words ring truth, and anybody not in full agreement with You must be biased.

That makes total sense.

Not totally lambasting vista does not mean a microsoft bias. Ars is one of the few good tech media sites out there.

Why would you consider Ars to have a Microsoft bias? For one, they were one the first PC enthusiast/hobbyist sites to begin taking Apple seriously again (lengthy, technically-focused articles covering the DP version of OS X going back to the late 90s).

It's also rather silly to suggest that a site with (at least) half a dozen individual editors is biased. Yes, if you read an article there by Evil_Merlin, it will have a Microsoft bias - and if you read a John Siracusa or Jacqueline Cheunq article, it will have a pro-Apple bias (and if - for some unimaginable reason - you happen to read a Jeremy Reimer article, it will probably have a pro-Amiga bias).

The worst you can accurately say about ArsTechnica's editors is that they have a diverse range of biases.

And you are there, matching them one for one, with posts entitled "Enough!". The reviews are varied. You, however, sound like a broken record. Minus one for you... again. Because at this point, you are effectively off-topic.

Edited 2007-11-08 00:23

IMO he's totally ON-topic. It's YAUR (yet another Ubuntu review), right? Criticizing articles is one of the purposes of the comments section, right? So why not criticize the fact that the web is full of fanboy Ubuntu reviews? I mean, c'mon, it's not like Ubuntu is the second coming of Christ. Heck, it's not even the best distro there is. Yet, every time a new version is released, those fanboyish reviews spring up everywhere, telling us how great an improvement this new release is over the old one. Essentially, all Ubuntu does is putting together some FOSS apps, adding some half-*ssed attempts at GUI configuration tools plus some artwork (which, to be fair, doesn't look too bad).

Now, I hear some people say "This is what most distros do." Not quite, folks.
1) Most decent distros don't try to imitate Windows, which is a good thing.
2) They give credit where credit is due, while Ubuntu deliberately fails to give proper credit to Debian. Check out their website, to stumble upon the word "Debian" some searching is required. NO Debian on the front page, NO Debian on the "What is Ubuntu?" page. Using other projects' work and not even mentioning them - How "human".
3) Other distros actually support FOSS. Contrary to all propagandistic claims, Launchpad still is proprietary. To quote a blogger: "How on EARTH can you say you’re a free software supporter but not release your own code?"
'nuff said.

There's more, but the above points already provide enough evidence that Ubuntu/Canonical is up to no good.

"And you are there, matching them one for one, with posts entitled "Enough!". The reviews are varied. You, however, sound like a broken record. Minus one for you... again. Because at this point, you are effectively off-topic."

I sound like a broken record? What sounds like a broken record are the myriad of Ubuntu reviews that all essentially say the same thing. They monotonously describe the booting of the live CD, the installation (which hasn't changed significantly since Ubuntu's inaugural release) and then the desktop experience. The reviewer then blathers on about his or her personal problems with the distribution and then wraps up with a paragraph or two about how wonderful Ubuntu is for newbies and Linux in general. Pardon me while I puke! Oh, and don't get me wrong: I'm an Ubuntu user myself. I just don't need to see an in-depth review by every Tom, Dick and Harry with a Blog!

See this post under the current story:

http://www4.osnews.com/permalink?283485

It is a very good reason why multiple reviews of the same product are beneficial and desirable. Individual reviewers have limited hardware on which to test, and use the OS in different ways. They have different expectations, and different opinions based upon a combination of those expectations, their own personal termperament, and the hardware that they have.

Those uninterested in the distro or OS, on the other hand, are perfectly free to use their eye muscles to deflect their eyes slightly down the page and skip the story. You have expended a great deal *more* effort than that to complain about something for which there is simply *no* valid reason for you to be bothered. Which makes me wonder what your real motivations might be.

For the record, I try to apply this attitude to *all* the stories here which reasonably belong in this forum. It does not matter if it is about an OS I like, or an OS that I don't. It's about respecting the fact that on a site like this, devoted to diversity in computing, different people, at different times, are going to find different stories helpful and interesting.

Do you have a problem with that?

Edited 2007-11-08 17:39