Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 16:05 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux As we mentioned in a previous article, Red Hat advocate Greg DeKoenigsberg claimed that due to the much larger amount of code it's contributed, Red Hat is a better open source citizen than Canonical, adding, "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization." A Computerworld blog retorts that that's no insult; and that marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code. Updated
Thread beginning with comment 435301
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ubuntu
by fredb1974 on Wed 4th Aug 2010 06:29 UTC in reply to "Ubuntu"
fredb1974
Member since:
2006-01-31

I think it's a bit bogus to emphasize the marketing aspect of Ubuntu.

What Ubuntu does is - it's making a distro that friggin works and looks nice. Try any other distro, and you'll quickly see how polished Ubuntu is in comparison. For many distros, it almost feels like they didn't even try it before shipping.


Polished or blindly copied on other OS ? ;)

I have to disagree. Just look at Fedora 13... It is as well polished as Ubuntu.

Yes, I include Debian in those broken distros. Ubuntu doesn't attempt to say "you know, this distro is mostly for experienced users" as an excuse. If Ubuntu is broken, it's considered broken by powers that be, instead of saying "yeah, you just need to do some fixup to config files here and there".


Debian is lighter than ubuntu... And simpler - for a intermediate linux user - to use.

Ubuntu is really a breath of fresh air in the Linux world. It has really raised the standards and what you can expect to work without manual fiddling.


Really ? Is that a good news ? I don't think so. Don't you need a driving license to drive a car ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by r_a_trip on Wed 4th Aug 2010 10:24 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntu is really a breath of fresh air in the Linux world. It has really raised the standards and what you can expect to work without manual fiddling.

Really ? Is that a good news ? I don't think so. Don't you need a driving license to drive a car ?

Sorry to butt in, but yeah, that is a good thing. No OS should ship with broken configuration in place. An OS should work as advertised. It shouldn't be a minefield of bugs and configuration niggles which an end user is compelled to solve before being able to use his machine.

Regardless of what Canonical contributes upstream, the Ubuntu project delivers an OS that has sane configuration by default. I won't claim that it is bug free or doesn't have it's occasional niggles, but overall, Ubuntu just lets you use your machine without making you jump through needlessly complicated hoops. Best of all, they do it without dumbing down Linux. All the raw power of the system is still available at the tips of your fingers, if you choose to dive in.

On top of that, it makes adding the naughty, proprietary bits and bobs (which everybody but RMS adds) relatively painless, it has the advantage of the depth and breadth of the available Debian packages and it has enough critical mass to get software projects to release their newest releases as .deb files and Ubuntu fosters a vast, easily accessible and friendly user community which is invaluable as a resource of information.

While all the other distro's have one element or another of what Ubuntu has, none of them have the picture as complete as Ubuntu.

Side note: I think elitists should only be allowed to use computers when they have produced their own silicon wafers, wrote their own ISA, etched their own circuitery and programmed their own OS from scratch.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ubuntu
by macinnisrr on Fri 6th Aug 2010 04:32 in reply to "RE: Ubuntu"
macinnisrr Member since:
2009-11-12

Wouldn't it be nicer if we had cars that one could drive with no prior knowledge and no need for a license? If we had such cars which could drive themselves, would you suggest that it was a negative when compared to the ones we have today. Keep in mind that at one time you used to have to turn a crank on your engine to get your car to run, make sure the choke was pulled out before starting, push it in afterwards, and there was no such thing as an automatic transmission. Are we worse off now because driving has become easier?

Reply Parent Score: 1