Ubuntu

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-13 23:42:01

Hey friends!
Lately my needs in a Linux distro has changed... I'm getting too busy to fiddle with stuff all the time. I need something that just works. Arch linux is a wonderful distribution if you like to fiddle with stuff to get everything just how you like it, and don't want any bloat. But right now, I don't have the time to fiddle with stuff, I just need everything to be stable.
That solution for me was Ubuntu. It detected all my hardware, is pretty fast (w/ 686 glibc and kernel), doesn't mess with my config files, and has plenty of up to date software. And when new stuff that I care about comes out, I can just get the packages from warty-backports (like firefox, gaim, and xchat). It's the perfect solution for me right now.
I'm probobly not leaving Arch for ever, just taking a break. Just letting you know, I won't be around as much. And you Trusted User guys can feel free to mess with/update my packages or whatever you want. Have fun! Good luck to you all, and keep up the good work with archlinux

sarah31 · 2004-12-13 23:46:30

good luck with your new cult.

fyi the only time in the last year i have had to "fiddle" with my system was switching from devfs to udev. anything break i file a bug if i cannot fix it with a patch of my own. but i don't like to fiddle that is why i use arch. once it is set you should not have to "fiddle".

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-13 23:53:12

sarah31 wrote:

good luck with your new cult.

cult? it's just an OS, man i mean panda

dp · 2004-12-13 23:53:17

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b … &va=fiddle

have fun! be productive!

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-14 00:10:43

dp wrote:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b … &va=fiddle
have fun! be productive!

fiddle: to alter or manipulate deceptively for fraudulent gain

link · 2004-12-14 01:26:43

Strange, I made this same move not too long ago Lukas. Did my matrix aid you at all? Just out of curiosity.

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-14 02:11:59

link wrote:

Strange, I made this same move not too long ago Lukas. Did my matrix aid you at all? Just out of curiosity.

Yeah, somewhat. I tried Debian first.. that was somewhat of a disaster. But Ubuntu is really nice It seems to be making quick progress as well, Hoary will be really nice

link · 2004-12-14 02:17:54

punkrockguy318 wrote:

link wrote:
Strange, I made this same move not too long ago Lukas. Did my matrix aid you at all? Just out of curiosity.
Yeah, somewhat. I tried Debian first.. that was somewhat of a disaster. But Ubuntu is really nice It seems to be making quick progress as well, Hoary will be really nice

Yes, the update-manager and upgrade-notifier thingies look pretty slick. I recently reinstalled Warty, and before I did so, I dist-upgraded to Hoary to check it out. Things are looking really nice, but it still lacks the polished, tested feeling that you get from Warty. I trust that come April they'll have Hoary all cleaned up.

FUBAR · 2004-12-14 16:25:01

Isn't Ubuntu a rip off of Debian using their unstable-repository?

phrakture · 2004-12-14 17:04:49

FUBAR wrote:

Isn't Ubuntu a rip off of Debian using their unstable-repository?

you can't "rip off" open source software. And if you think like that, Arch Linux is a ripoff of Crux...

Unbuntu is a fork of debian. Yes it uses their repositories, but that's what they're there for...

Winkie · 2004-12-14 17:40:49

FUBAR wrote:

Isn't Ubuntu a rip off of Debian using their unstable-repository?

It's more of an integrated version, it's quite nice really, but having a windowmanager already there just aint cricket.

rasat · 2004-12-15 01:28:47

phrakture wrote:

Unbuntu is a fork of debian. Yes it uses their repositories, but that's what they're there for...

Its correct but..... not fair. Just imagen a fork Arch where packages and technical side are maintained by Arch and the forker(s) enjoys a free ride developing e.g. GUI tools and other face lift of easy work. If there is a fork, to be fair either there is a package agreement or independent development.

link · 2004-12-15 04:49:36

rasat wrote:

phrakture wrote:
Unbuntu is a fork of debian. Yes it uses their repositories, but that's what they're there for...
Its correct but..... not fair. Just imagen a fork Arch where packages and technical side are maintained by Arch and the forker(s) enjoys a free ride developing e.g. GUI tools and other face lift of easy work. If there is a fork, to be fair either there is a package agreement or independent development.

The Canonical developers (the guys working on Ubuntu) are heavily involved in both upstream GNOME as well as "upstream" Debian. So even you as an Arch user (assuming you use GNOME) benefit from their "free ride". The Ubuntu developers put in a lot of hard work and time polishing up Debian for their own distribution, but Debian is more than welcome to take some of the work that Ubuntu has done. Its all open source and available to the public. We could even apply some to Arch Linux.
They're only human and can only work on so much. And I'm glad to have a GNOME-only, stable, polished distribution. I've wanted such a thing for a long time, even to the point of starting my own. But someone else decided to start a distribution that tracks the GNOME releases. More power to them, and I'll probably stick with it.

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-15 21:12:01

FUBAR wrote:

Isn't Ubuntu a rip off of Debian using their unstable-repository?

No, it's all free software.. It's using Debian's Unstable tree... Tell me one thing: What's the point of reinventing the wheel? There are plenty of Debian packages available. What's the point of making your own just for props? That's probobly one of the reasons Ubuntu chose Debian for a base: It had resonably uptodate software, advanced package management, and lots of software available. They're not "ripping off" anyone. Debian isn't getting any money for their packages, neither are Ubuntu.

aCoder · 2004-12-15 21:23:01

I tried Ubuntu once. However, it filled me with immense hatred toward the whole debian packaging 'thing'. I fail to see anything good about Debian other than it's a mess, so it's great for people who are looking for an organizational nightmare. That said anyone who isn't 'fiddling' won't notice the mess their system is past the whole, truly a pain in the ass (for me anyway, but perhaps I've been spoiled by Slackware and Arch), debian-installer crisis.

punkrockguy318 · 2004-12-16 02:40:17

aCoder wrote:

I tried Ubuntu once. However, it filled me with immense hatred toward the whole debian packaging 'thing'. I fail to see anything good about Debian other than it's a mess, so it's great for people who are looking for an organizational nightmare. That said anyone who isn't 'fiddling' won't notice the mess their system is past the whole, truly a pain in the ass (for me anyway, but perhaps I've been spoiled by Slackware and Arch), debian-installer crisis.

How is Debian a mess?

link · 2004-12-16 05:37:03

aCoder wrote:

I tried Ubuntu once. However, it filled me with immense hatred toward the whole debian packaging 'thing'. I fail to see anything good about Debian other than it's a mess, so it's great for people who are looking for an organizational nightmare. That said anyone who isn't 'fiddling' won't notice the mess their system is past the whole, truly a pain in the ass (for me anyway, but perhaps I've been spoiled by Slackware and Arch), debian-installer crisis.

Yes, compared to Arch Linux, Debian's package management is immensly complex. I've used Debian off and on for about 4 years though, so I'm fairly well adjusted to apt. It does take some getting used to, and for many people the complexity of apt is welcomed. To each his own.
I personally don't mind the Debian package management method. Sure it installs a few extra dependencies, but the ability to remove certain libraries if I don't want them is helpful. Say I want PHP, but don't want MySQL support, I can just remove the php-mysql package. With Arch's simple fixed dependencies the package 'php' depends on 'mysql' and you have to install it. Since Debian breaks up one "source" package into multiple binary packages, it allows for this versitility. I feel this is a good thing, and not a detriment.

sweiss · 2004-12-16 07:16:41

I've yet to find a simpler distribution than Arch really. I was fairly disappointed with Debian's package management even though I've used it for a very short period of time.

And I actually hate fiddling with stuff, I don't have the strength anymore, and that's exactly why I use Arch. I don't think I've edited any configuration files in months, other than switching from devfs to udev.

The only thing Arch sort of lacks are, as with almost any distribution, more packages, but hopefully once the new system is up (how is it progressing, really?) that need of mine will be fulfilled.

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-12-16 16:23:41

We could even apply some to Arch Linux.

The menu structure of ubuntu is straight and clean, I like it, 2, and I like your background to (a-will-have-it).

aCoder · 2004-12-17 03:54:35

How is Debian a mess?

Well, I think the pkg management system is needlessly complex. Some people, like link, for example, see this as a good thing, where I find it an annoyance. Luckily, you don't really have to tweak every pkg on your system, and with Ubuntu, it's easier yet, since the packages installed are just a simple and complete set of basic desktop apps, built with what I think are particularly useful patches. I like Ubuntu. I don't like Debian. I left Ubuntu because I couldn't get over the fact that it was Debian, and nVidia's drivers were a pain, (note: that seems to me to be the fault of the nightmare that is apt repositories, with all thier non-free paranoia), and in Arch, it's a simple 'pacman -S nvidia'. Pacman has ruined anything that's good about another pkg manager. I just can't get over it. The biggest Debian problem that's carried over to Ubuntu is debian-installer. debian-installer is crap. Cheap, useless crap. I'm sorry, but there are so many better installers out there for Linux distros. Debian and Ubuntu are not good enough distros to be worth the hell that is their installation. The worst part is, I've tried the old installation, and as much as I hated that, coming from Slackware, which has my favorite installer, at the time, debian-installer is worse. Every time it starts doing something, it scares the hell out of me. There's no real feedback, just a progress bar that moves to an arbitrary value whether or not a command completes successfully. It is nice enough to tell you of an error afterwords, but that could mean waiting a lot longer than you should have to in order to find out about it. I'll take /arch/setup anyday. Nothing beats Slackware's setup though, but if any installer will make it there, I think it's Arch's.

iphitus · 2004-12-17 05:57:16

The current stable, woody installer for debian sucks, but the sarge/sid installer I think is great. So dont bag it, it's old technology like the rest of that version, woody's software. It's meant to be old

The new one is here:
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/

link · 2004-12-17 06:07:44

Yea, the new debian-installer is much nicer than the woody one, though its still got its faults. I do think Arch has the nicest installer I've seen. It fits the distribution very well.
I think experiences with the new Debian installer are very varied. My experience with it has been very smooth, but like I've said before, I've years of familiarity with Debian, so I can nurse it along through the rough parts. In general though, the feedback I've heard from people about the "Ubuntu" installer is that , even though its "not very pretty" it guessed defaults very well and made the install process as seemless and streamlined as possible. I agree that the debian-installer is not without its bugs and problems, but its an incredible improvement over woody's installer.

Moo-Crumpus · 2004-12-17 06:11:07

nablabla .... won't you debate ubunut @ ubunut wikis ore somewhere else? :shock:

link · 2004-12-17 06:14:01

Pink Chick wrote:

nablabla .... won't you debate ubunut @ ubunut wikis ore somewhere else? :shock:

This is a debate about Arch Linux versus Ubuntu, and the pros and cons of each. Its as valid on Arch Linux's forums as it is on Ubuntu's.

woodstock · 2004-12-20 06:02:31

I've been testing out ubuntu on my system for a little while. I'm currently using Slackware with Arch both on the same drive.

Ubuntu was a nice gnome experience but as a distro it didn't fit my needs exactly.

Pro's:
- Nice default package selection. Firefox, OpenOffice etc.
- Nice gnome setup. (theme could be nicer though)
- Apt-get is nice (not my cup of tea, but it works)

Con's
- Much slower than what I'm use to (especially now after using arch).
I just can't get use to the delays anymore... It's like I'm using someone elses slower machine instead of my good ol' system.
- Multimedia programs such as Mplayer and even having m3p support are missing. Mplayer has to be manually put together (not really a problem as I compile a lot of software on my own anyways)

Now, ubuntu can pretty much do whatever Arch can and the also the other way around. Infact every distro boils down to one main thing for a difference... package management. I personally prefer pacman, due to its simplicity in use and design, plus the word 'pacman' is much more fun to say than 'apt-get'.

Both are relatively young projects, ubuntu isn't really as it's based off of debian which is far more mature in terms of age compared to Arch, but I see more potential in Arch than I do in Ubuntu. My reasoning is, Arch isn't based on anything and has a HUGE range of movement compared to the already established Debian base, which from observation changes very little if not at all as it's being developed (mostly just software updates are being made from what I can see).

Both distro's have there place. I prefer to stay with a more flexible distro, hence the reason why I use Arch in the first place.

BTW: I also used Hoary (the ubuntu "current" branch) and while it did break here and there, most of the problems were fixed quickly. The point is that from what I saw so far, nothing has really changed except for some software updates... sorry to say, but wooptie-doo...

Just my 2(canadian) cents...

Arch Linux

#1 2004-12-13 23:42:01

Ubuntu

#2 2004-12-13 23:46:30

Re: Ubuntu

#3 2004-12-13 23:53:12

Re: Ubuntu

#4 2004-12-13 23:53:17

Re: Ubuntu

#5 2004-12-14 00:10:43

Re: Ubuntu

#6 2004-12-14 01:26:43

Re: Ubuntu

#7 2004-12-14 02:11:59

Re: Ubuntu

#8 2004-12-14 02:17:54

Re: Ubuntu

#9 2004-12-14 16:25:01

Re: Ubuntu

#10 2004-12-14 17:04:49

Re: Ubuntu

#11 2004-12-14 17:40:49

Re: Ubuntu

#12 2004-12-15 01:28:47

Re: Ubuntu

#13 2004-12-15 04:49:36

Re: Ubuntu

#14 2004-12-15 21:12:01

Re: Ubuntu

#15 2004-12-15 21:23:01

Re: Ubuntu

#16 2004-12-16 02:40:17

Re: Ubuntu

#17 2004-12-16 05:37:03

Re: Ubuntu

#18 2004-12-16 07:16:41

Re: Ubuntu

#19 2004-12-16 16:23:41

Re: Ubuntu

#20 2004-12-17 03:54:35

Re: Ubuntu

#21 2004-12-17 05:57:16

Re: Ubuntu

#22 2004-12-17 06:07:44

Re: Ubuntu

#23 2004-12-17 06:11:07

Re: Ubuntu

#24 2004-12-17 06:14:01

Re: Ubuntu

#25 2004-12-20 06:02:31

Re: Ubuntu

Board footer