ubuntu's popularity

Heller_Barde · 2010-03-07 23:50:20

the problem for ubuntu is that as long as manufacturers don't include preconfigured driver packages for ubuntu (or 'what-have-you'-distro) there is no "plop cd in and be happy" which means they have to see _on their own_ that every thing works for every computer on the whole planet ^^ (or so everyone expects them to)

as long as GNU/Linux does not have unrestricted support (working drivers) by (virtually) every hardwaremanufacturer on the planet, it's not gonna be a serious player in the desktop market. add to that the deeeeply divided GNU/Linux community (-ies...) and all the dev-squabbles and the huge mass of hardly-working software...

I do not hold my breath for (yet another) "the year of Linux on the desktop!!!! OMGGGG"
*shrug*

cheers
Barde

(similar to yet another "finaaaalllyyyy we found the iPhone-Killer!!!!!!11"... grow up)

disappoint · 2010-07-06 20:25:43

Malware isn't about just destroying your files anymore. These days it's all about making $$$ - usually by renting out a botnet to other crackers, and/or stealing credit card info. The Linux community shouldn't be worried about rogue programs that rm -rf *. The (much more destructive and tangible) threats are keyloggers and botnets... And from my experience, those should be easy enough to create for Linux. Hell, I'm just a web developer, and I could probably write an adequate bash script(!)...
... But actually distributing it to users would be the real challenge. One important factor that protects Linux users from malware - we tend to be computer-savvy ENOUGH to have the common sense not to download/install/run dangerous-looking programs from the internet. Although I suppose that as more newbies start using Linux, the "common sense" factor will also gradually decrease...

Last edited by disappoint (2010-07-06 20:26:26)

MoonSwan · 2010-07-06 22:56:58

Misfit138 wrote:

When I said "freeze everything and fork", I meant it...
That means no such thing as "upstream" forever more. Every single bug and all development is handled in-house by the new project staff.
There would never be a reason to "upgrade" to the next kernel or any other piece of software, from upstream sources. The entire "package set" of the entire distribution would be forked, then developed, and maintained by the new OS team. All software would be more tightly integrated, and all code would begin to be audited for working together and more reliably on a broader scope of hardware..
This is the only way to develop a desktop GNU/Linux OS to compete with Windows/OSX.
A billionaire, like Shuttleworth, could make it happen...but it won't happen.

Sounds a lot like the MinuetOS to me or Haiku perhaps? Or am I off base?

baion baion · 2010-07-10 14:29:15

Misfit138 wrote:

When I said "freeze everything and fork", I meant it...
That means no such thing as "upstream" forever more. Every single bug and all development is handled in-house by the new project staff.
There would never be a reason to "upgrade" to the next kernel or any other piece of software, from upstream sources. The entire "package set" of the entire distribution would be forked, then developed, and maintained by the new OS team. All software would be more tightly integrated, and all code would begin to be audited for working together and more reliably on a broader scope of hardware..
This is the only way to develop a desktop GNU/Linux OS to compete with Windows/OSX.
A billionaire, like Shuttleworth, could make it happen...but it won't happen.

I don't think that even a community as big as the Ubuntu community has enough developers to do that. Plus it will eventually reach a point where it will be so different than every other linux distribution, that you will need special training to administrate Ubuntu machines. Except if they keep synchronizing with upstream every couple of years which would make no sense, it would be like moving backwards and erasing all the work the developers have done.

Last edited by baion baion (2010-07-10 14:30:06)

Misfit138 · 2010-07-10 14:53:14

baion baion wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
When I said "freeze everything and fork", I meant it...
That means no such thing as "upstream" forever more. Every single bug and all development is handled in-house by the new project staff.
There would never be a reason to "upgrade" to the next kernel or any other piece of software, from upstream sources. The entire "package set" of the entire distribution would be forked, then developed, and maintained by the new OS team. All software would be more tightly integrated, and all code would begin to be audited for working together and more reliably on a broader scope of hardware..
This is the only way to develop a desktop GNU/Linux OS to compete with Windows/OSX.
A billionaire, like Shuttleworth, could make it happen...but it won't happen.
I don't think that even a community as big as the Ubuntu community has enough developers to do that. Plus it will eventually reach a point where it will be so different than every other linux distribution, that you will need special training to administrate Ubuntu machines. Except if they keep synchronizing with upstream every couple of years which would make no sense, it would be like moving backwards and erasing all the work the developers have done.

Well, like I said, at a certain point, it would become an actual discrete operating system, and no longer a distribution. Also, it will never happen. We live in a world of practicalities and compromises which will not allow it to happen.
My point was not to wallow in regret over the nonexistence of such a project, (I personally could care less) rather, merely to reflect on what it would take to actually change the current development model into something more ideal. Again, something that will never happen.
I'm a realist, believe me.

DonVla · 2010-07-10 16:42:38

I ask myself now after 5 years why did Shuttleworth choose Debian for Ubuntu.
For the same money he probably could have bought Mandrive/Mandrake. Now Ubuntu provides many tools which Mandrake already had some time ago. Actually, Mandriva is still a rock-solid distro with many user-friendly tools which has too little promotion. And I still think this is the main point. Ubuntu's main characteristic is still its promotion and advertisement capabilities. There is no magazine - Linux or not-Linux related - which didn't report about it.

dozerismydogsname · 2010-07-11 01:15:32

I've had this discussion with a few of my peers before, and it ended up rather interestingly. As for me, i believe the reason it's so popular is because it sort off has a wysiwyg feel. It's the distro people point too when a new linux users asks "which linux he/she should use". It comes with a lot of the drivers loaded so you don't have to find yours. It comes with some of the software that people would probably use on a day to day basis. Furthermore i've found that anything that has to do with configuration has some sort of gui.

Inxsible · 2010-07-11 05:07:41

DonVla wrote:

I ask myself now after 5 years why did Shuttleworth choose Debian for Ubuntu.
For the same money he probably could have bought Mandrive/Mandrake. Now Ubuntu provides many tools which Mandrake already had some time ago. Actually, Mandriva is still a rock-solid distro with many user-friendly tools which has too little promotion. And I still think this is the main point. Ubuntu's main characteristic is still its promotion and advertisement capabilities. There is no magazine - Linux or not-Linux related - which didn't report about it.

You make its sound like its bad that the magazines talk/report about Ubuntu.

Most archers here came over from Ubuntu. I know I did. So I guess Ubuntu is a great stepping stone for people to venture away from Windows and not suddenly have to feel overwhelmed by having to install everything manually etc. Like you mentioned, Ubuntu tries to give every driver possible and any configuration most likely is through GUI. But only by using a simple-to-use distro, did I have enough werewithal to get something like Arch and also slackware and gentoo.

So ubuntu is doing its job. Some might be just happy to stay with Ubuntu. Others might move on. I am sure many moved on from Arch to some other distro as well.

FxF · 2010-07-11 06:22:18

funkmuscle wrote:

Hey, was just wondering, with the popularity of Ubuntu, that's putting Linux in the spotlight, you think that would open up to viruses created for unix based systems?

I think Linux' 'market share' for desktop PCs would need to be comparable to that of OSX (Mac) before it is a big enough target for the virus community. I don't think we're there quite yet... and even at that point, a Fedora system is going to 'look' different from an Ubuntu one (and there are several variations of them), an Arch system would look different from both of them, etc. I'm not saying that a virus couldn't be written to attack the kernel, or GRUB, or some of the common features shared by most if not all Linux systems, but I suspect that the diversity of distributions (i.e. non-monoculture nature of Linux) could be a strength with respect to virus defense. Plus, most Linux users are knowledgeable enough not to use their systems logged in with admin privileges all the time, right? That alone is an advantage vs. most Windows users who are effectively running their systems as root.

funkmuscle wrote:

Personally, I don't know how folks deal with Ubuntu or any other linux distros once you've used Arch..

Well, Ubuntu has a rep for being fairly bulletproof as far as detecting commonly-used hardware (and PCs made by HP, Dell, etc.) and was a breeze to set up on my HP TX1000 tablet/laptop... frankly easier and faster than installing Windows imho. There's loads of help available on various Ubuntu forums, and you get access to the large Debian repository. There's a lot to recommend about Ubuntu (and its variants) for a Linux newbie....

I'm moving off of it because of bloat and performance/memory footprint, but I'll devote a partition on my new laptop's HDD for a lightweight variant, probably Lubuntu, as a backup for the times I break my Arch and/or Gentoo installs.

FxF · 2010-07-11 07:13:16

pogeymanz wrote:

Misfit138 wrote:
Let it be sufficient to say that once you get comfortable using a particular computer platform, it is easy and natural to see the drawbacks of a competing product. We are probably all using GNU/Linux here, and therefore it is expected that discussions like this become polarized.
I will simply conclude by saying that in my view, distros like Ubuntu have failed because they have not yet gone beyond the "plop in tray and pray" level at this point.
I hope they do, but I don't see it so far.
But they're getting closer at least.
I do agree with a post above that said that a distro should just freeze all core utilities at some version and then keep that for a few years and only update stuff on top. That's the only way to compete with OSX and Windows. Would I use that distro? Nope. But it would make more people use Linux. Distros like SimplyMEPIS are already doing this: They take Debian Stable and then the user-level applications are rolling release (things like Firefox, Openoffice, etc). I don't understand why that one isn't more popular. Ubuntu's six-month release cycle seems absurd to me.

Don't forget though, everyone has the option to install the most-recent LTS version and stick with it until the next one becomes available. I installed Intrepid Ibex on my HP TX1xxx and was waiting for Karmic (the next LTS) to upgrade (skipping Jaunty), but my PC died before I had a chance to do so...

Of course, the LTS isn't the same as Debian Stable, as far as I know... and to get the latest user-level apps, you might have to resort to using PPAs, which I've always felt was a little inelegant.

FxF · 2010-07-11 07:20:32

Inxsible wrote:

DonVla wrote:
I ask myself now after 5 years why did Shuttleworth choose Debian for Ubuntu.
For the same money he probably could have bought Mandrive/Mandrake. Now Ubuntu provides many tools which Mandrake already had some time ago. Actually, Mandriva is still a rock-solid distro with many user-friendly tools which has too little promotion. And I still think this is the main point. Ubuntu's main characteristic is still its promotion and advertisement capabilities. There is no magazine - Linux or not-Linux related - which didn't report about it.
You make its sound like its bad that the magazines talk/report about Ubuntu.
Most archers here came over from Ubuntu. I know I did. So I guess Ubuntu is a great stepping stone for people to venture away from Windows and not suddenly have to feel overwhelmed by having to install everything manually etc. Like you mentioned, Ubuntu tries to give every driver possible and any configuration most likely is through GUI. But only by using a simple-to-use distro, did I have enough werewithal to get something like Arch and also slackware and gentoo.
So ubuntu is doing its job. Some might be just happy to stay with Ubuntu. Others might move on. I am sure many moved on from Arch to some other distro as well.

Agree... I'm in the process of switching from Ubuntu myself.

So many people are saying that Ubuntu has been their 'gateway' Linux. Are we all saying that Ubuntu is the 'marijuana' of the Linux world?

DonVla · 2010-07-11 07:21:28

Inxsible wrote:

You make its sound like its bad that the magazines talk/report about Ubuntu.

That was not what I said. It's ok that magazines write about Ubuntu.
One of my points was that Ubuntu's popularity is basically based on its promotion. Sure they do an ok job with the rest, but - and this is my other point - Ubuntu provides tools which Madriva/Mandrake had, let's say, five years ago; perhaps not so polished.
So I ask myself why Shuttleworth didn't buy Mandrake and improved it. Mandrake was a pretty mature distro even six years ago. However, this is just a thought....
One of Linux' main problems is the lack of advertisement. And I do not mean the techie advertisement, like "Hey, you can compile your own kernel O_o", but the simple "I am a PC and I can use a browser!" stuff. And that's where Ubuntu drops in. This is Ubuntu's effort so far, but still far from perfect.
On the other hand Linux lacks of a significant characteristic apart the security (+ the nerd) stuff. Sadly, most people do not care about.
Actually, I am looking forward to gnome-shell. It makes the impression that it could give Linux a "face". I mean smth people see and say "Hey, this is Linux".

sand_man · 2010-07-11 12:11:52

Who likes beating dead horses?

moljac024 · 2010-07-11 13:50:53

sand_man wrote:

Who likes beating dead horses?

A lot of people, apparently

Arch Linux

#51 2010-03-07 23:50:20

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#52 2010-07-06 20:25:43

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#53 2010-07-06 22:56:58

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#54 2010-07-10 14:29:15

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#55 2010-07-10 14:53:14

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#56 2010-07-10 16:42:38

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#57 2010-07-11 01:15:32

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#58 2010-07-11 05:07:41

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#59 2010-07-11 06:22:18

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#60 2010-07-11 07:13:16

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#61 2010-07-11 07:20:32

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#62 2010-07-11 07:21:28

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#63 2010-07-11 12:11:52

Re: ubuntu's popularity

#64 2010-07-11 13:50:53

Re: ubuntu's popularity

Board footer