Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 231

Thread: Ubuntu is NOT a part of community

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    OSS/Linux environment heavily depends on commercial support. Imagine you have some non-IT company and you want to put your money into Linux ecosystem. The most common way is to buy complete solution with commercial support.

    If you buy RedHat or Novell/SUSE product, you will get support, but - and this is important - you money will be used in Linux ecosystem development. Because these companies develop upstream components or pay developers.

    But. If you buy Canonical product, you wonŽ t support anything in upstream.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default What about Oracle?

    I think our community should be more worried about the impact of Oracle.

    The EU objected to Oracle's purchase of Sun due to MySQL.

    What is the future of Open Office?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    @Melcar

    You have to submit a launchpad errorentry and best a tested patch then you usually get a fix. I did that several times as i reuse the U kernel and have got only a few extra patches left, most are inside the U kernel (or the mainline).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    21

    Default

    i think ubuntu has internally a lot of problems because they can not solve enough problems. my experience with launchpad and bugs is not the best, i had the idea that some bug reports do get an invalid status and such because of the lack of resources for bug fixing.

    my bug report made a register headline
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...a_frustration/
    Early adopters bloodied by Ubuntu's Karmic Koala
    Smooth Windows upgrade it ain't

    the more users are unhappy, the more will know it. just to claim something works for a while, but on the long rung it destructs. if something is announced as super easy and you need the cli for booting, then they are in deep troubles...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    I would not annouce a distro as super easy. As long as you manage to see something on the screen you can usually get help - if there are qualified helpers. Also you should be able to go online of couse. When you boot and see nothing then you are in real trouble. Users should not fear the commandline even if thats not the Win way of solving things. Mouse clicking is nice for webbrowsers but not to do admin tasks. Of couse when i write a fire and forget script the learning curve is not that high, but at least somebody learns that things could be automated in a very smart way - the smaller scripts are even relatively easy to understand for somebody who is familiar with any programming language.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Beard View Post
    I think our community should be more worried about the impact of Oracle.

    The EU objected to Oracle's purchase of Sun due to MySQL.

    What is the future of Open Office?
    MySQL is in danger and EU sees it. But I'm not worried about OpenOffice. There are two major players SUN (Oracle) and Novell. Novell complained a long time, that the development of OO go wrong way. Finally they forked OO and released GO-OO. Many major distributions today use Novell fork.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    What can I say, I've yet to report a bug to Ubuntu without some developer checking with and/or offering a patch to upstream. As an end-user, my impression is that Ubuntu developers work pretty closely with upstream.

    Yes, Ubuntu is not a major contributor to the kernel and I honestly don't see what's the big deal with that. Arch, PCLinuxOS or pretty much any distro other than Red Hat / SuSE / Debian isn't a big contributor either, but you don't see people bitching about that.

    Jealousy is the name.

    The fact is that Ubuntu has managed to convert more people from Windows to Linux than any other distro out there. It is usable, polished, fast and easy to get started with. Yes there are better distros out there if you are looking into specific use-cases, but nothing can match Ubuntu on the whole package.

    Maybe you think that's irrelevant or even detrimental to the linux ecosystem. That's your right. It's also short-sighted.

    All I can say is, thank you Ubuntu for bringing the fun back to computing (and I'm saying that after using Windows 3.1-7, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Fedora, Debian, openSUSE and Arch for sizeable periods of time).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dust View Post
    Early adopters bloodied by Ubuntu's Karmic Koala
    Smooth Windows upgrade it ain't
    Yeah, the 9.04 to 9.10 upgrade was pretty bad: downloaded nearly 2GB, took six hours and broke a bunch of stuff in the process.

    However, a clean install was easy and it is generally an improvement over 9.04. I think the big problem is that they're trying to support thousands of applications as well as the OS and inevitably something in the upgrade process is going to break some of them.

    Just as I don't install Windows until after it gets the fiirst service pack, I don't install an Ubuntu upgrade until a month or so after it's been released.

    Back on the original subject, I'm not quite sure what anyone expects of them. A distribution is basically taking other people's software and packaging it together with their changes and any software they develop themselves; I'm not sure why people expect a lot of fixes coming back in the other direction unless the distro has paying customers who are going to fund significant development and support work.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,712

    Default

    Blackstar, converting people is a good thing? Really? What about articles like this?
    http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7600/1.html

    Ubuntu has a huge marketshare - and they do NOTHING. Not kernel, not X, not glibc, not gcc, not binutils, perl, kde. They patch gnome heavily and they deconstruct kde with every relase. They don't play nicely. Even gentoo is more eager to get things upstream.- And gentoo is a freaking community distro, without a corporation (Canonical) and some millionair behind it.

    Ubuntu is toxic.

    Why is phoronix so stuck up with ubuntu and fedora? Why? One good reason please.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    Blackstar, converting people is a good thing? Really? What about articles like this?
    http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7600/1.html
    That article is utter rubbish. The writer should be emarassed for posting this - what's his argument, that there's a list of known errata? Check any large software: Apache, Mesa, Xorg, Windows, Mac OS X and be enlightened.

    That the upgrade experience was bad? Try upgrading openSUSE or Fedora sometime, it's fun. Windows is even worse and Mac OS X takes the cake (wiping out your entire user account as part of the upgrade process is, how shall I put this, priceless).

    Ubuntu upgrades are a breeze in comparison.

    Ubuntu has a huge marketshare - and they do NOTHING. Not kernel, not X, not glibc, not gcc, not binutils, perl, kde.
    A distributor's job is to package software, configure it, test it and make sure that it works for the user. It is *not* his job to develop the software in the first place.

    They patch gnome heavily
    and promote the patches upstream

    and they deconstruct kde with every relase.
    as does Fedora and openSUSE.

    They don't play nicely.
    They have responded and fixed every single bug I have reported and all relevant patches were forwarded upstream.

    Even gentoo is more eager to get things upstream.
    I thought Gentoo followed the "don't patch" philosophy, like Arch?

    And gentoo is a freaking community distro, without a corporation (Canonical) and some millionair behind it.
    Who doesn't actually make any money out of this endeavor, unlike Red Hat or Novel.

    Ubuntu is toxic.
    Yet it has raised awareness and made the OS accessible as no other distro before. If that's toxic, I'll have another one please.

    Why is phoronix so stuck up with ubuntu and fedora? Why? One good reason please.
    Because these are the distros that actually matter. What would you have, Gentoo? Let me laugh. OpenSUSE? That's a badly-designed, bloated Ubuntu wannabee. Debian? Ubuntu overshadows it in all regards.

    What else should phoronix use, really?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •