Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 20:59 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu When Dell announced a shift in its Linux strategy last week, accompanied by a new netbook, many wondered why Dell insisted on pre-loading Ubuntu 8.04, instead of newer versions of the popular Linux distribution such as 8.10 or 9.04. BetaNews contacted Dell about it, and Dell replied explaining their rationale behind opting for 8.04.
Thread beginning with comment 364868
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23


You have obviously never used Debian. There ARE stable and generally bug free distros out there, Ubuntu just isn't one of them. Please don't generalize and assume that Ubuntu is the benchmark 'linux'. I shudder at the thought.

As gets repeated over and over again; Ubuntu ≠ Linux.


Are you a non-technical user? I believe that the answer is "no".

Debian could never be distributed to the general population and achieve great success. It's great for enthusiasts and professionals, but not for grandma. There are very few distributions that are trying to reach the average person but they're still a bit undercooked.

Just because you're thrilled to deal with surprises doesn't mean that the non-technical person is. Besides, a distribution relies on applications, not just system utilities. You might never have to employ your skills to run a Linux distribution, but if you do, you have the skills. What happens to the average person when it doesn't work? Do they dive into the XWindows configuration to fix the resolution problem?

Reply Parent Score: 2

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

Are you a non-technical user? I believe that the answer is "no".

Debian could never be distributed to the general population and achieve great success. It's great for enthusiasts and professionals, but not for grandma. There are very few distributions that are trying to reach the average person but they're still a bit undercooked.

Just because you're thrilled to deal with surprises doesn't mean that the non-technical person is. Besides, a distribution relies on applications, not just system utilities. You might never have to employ your skills to run a Linux distribution, but if you do, you have the skills. What happens to the average person when it doesn't work? Do they dive into the XWindows configuration to fix the resolution problem?

That wasn't my point. For some reasons that I just can't fathom, most user-friendly linux distros are leading or bleeding edge and therefore unstable. Shouldn't an OS designed for non-technical users be STABLE? Why would grandma care if she is running the most up to date xorg or kernel? It should just work and work reliably, even if using 'out of date' packages.

If someone were to take Debian stable and add all the little bells and whistles that would make it user friendly then you would have a STABLE disto that would be ready for the general public, but I'm generalizing. So, Debian COULD be distributed to the general public, but in different clothes.

Reply Parent Score: 1

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Fully agreed.

I've never really understood the potential gains from the "versionism" that seem to plague these mainstream desktop Linux distributions. Is there really some value-added by including a version 1.2.3 instead of 1.2.2? But then again, I am not a marketing person.

The instability, constant updates, six month release cycles, the whole "patch of today" -thinking, etc. do more harm than good for all UNIX-derivatives.

Ironically, this increasingly means that one has to rely on commercial support to ensure at least some kind of guarantee for stability. Few notable exceptions like Debian exists, but the overall trend can be seen. A malevolent mind would add that perhaps this is indeed what the new global multinational Linux overloads want?

Reply Parent Score: 1

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


That wasn't my point. For some reasons that I just can't fathom, most user-friendly linux distros are leading or bleeding edge and therefore unstable. Shouldn't an OS designed for non-technical users be STABLE? Why would grandma care if she is running the most up to date xorg or kernel? It should just work and work reliably, even if using 'out of date' packages.

If someone were to take Debian stable and add all the little bells and whistles that would make it user friendly then you would have a STABLE disto that would be ready for the general public, but I'm generalizing. So, Debian COULD be distributed to the general public, but in different clothes.


Sure, but isn't that how Ubuntu started?

I think the only way this will work is for 1 person to put together a distribution so there are no arguments or committees or anything that will disturb the vision.

Personally, I think that PC-BSD could be that desktop that people want since usually FreeBSD is quite stable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

handydan918 Member since:
2009-05-22

Debian Stable is in fact the basis of my favorite distro, Mepis. It is not released every 6 months, but it has some really great "Mepis Only" GUI tools, including an X-windows Assistant, a Network Assistant, etc.

You can even reinstall grub, from a live cd, with nothing but GUI tools!
Ubuntu is SO primitive....

Edited 2009-05-22 20:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1