I'm back from ubuntu.

mecon · 2007-09-02 20:10:05

Only because there is more software there, but all of it is out of date.

shining · 2007-09-02 20:28:48

Maybe you should have tried debian stable before ubuntu

hussam · 2007-09-02 20:47:35

Once you try ArchLinux, it's not really fun to use Ubuntu or any 6-months-release distribution. With Arch, you get addicted to using the latest Kernel and Gnome/KDE.
With Ubuntu, if kernel 2.6.22 is buggy, you get stuck with it for 6 months. On Arch, you don't because you're upgraded to a hopefully better 2.6.23 once it is out. Of course this isn't always the case as I've seen a lot people claiming Linux kernels are getting more buggy by the release.
One of the reasons Ubuntu got so popular is that at that time, there wasn't a Debian release for so long that people who were still using Debian 3.0 simply dist upgraded to to Ubuntu. Later Ubuntu started their huge media publicity in an attempt to move as many windows users as possible to Ubuntu.
That wasn't a good idea because transitioning from windows to Linux should happen slowly and naturally. This is what I like about ArchLinux. We don't do major advertising but we still get new users and we are in the top 20 in Distrowatch which means windows users are checking out ArchLinux regardless of the lack of advertising.
It's the same exact error that Mozilla is doing. Instead of telling people that Firefox is a bit safer to use than IE and less buggy, they make people think that simply opening IE will make your PC infected with a virus which made people paranoid of IE and people started switching to Firefox for the wrong reasons.

Forgot to say, welcome back mecon.

Last edited by hussam (2007-09-02 21:30:27)

raymano · 2007-09-02 21:23:12

Welcome back. I guess I'm not the only one that thinks kernel 2.6.22 is crap!

Misfit138 · 2007-09-02 22:36:55

Welcome back.
I hate Gnome, so Ubuntu is just not an option for me.
Not only that, but I love the Arch philosophy, community, and methodology much more than Ubuntu's, and every other distro's for that matter.

pjeremy · 2007-09-03 00:09:31

Heh, I suppose it's inconceivable to compile your own kernel...besides that, afaik, if there is a real problem with some software the Ubuntu team will update it (example, recent kernel update for Ubuntu 6.06), they just won't release every shitty update of mplayer for example, unless it's security related.
Claiming that Ubuntu merely got popular because there hadn't been a major release of Debian is asinine. The same goes for the importance of Distrowatch, how people should change operating systems or your completely unrelated and incorrect opinion about Mozillas marketing of their substandard browser (IE6 has been more secure than FF 1.x in 2006).
Thank God that the Ubuntu repositories don't have pretty much every WM/DE you'd want to use. God forbid you'd have to learn to use apt, aptitude or worse, Synaptic. And God forbid they might not provide a package for your exotic WM and you'd have to compile it or make a package yourself. God forbid.
Ignorant Ubuntu bashing at its finest again.

Last edited by pjeremy (2007-09-03 00:14:15)

hussam · 2007-09-03 00:24:45

pjeremy, I never said "Ubuntu merely got popular because there hadn't been a major release of Debian"
I said "one of the reasons". Next time please read carefully.
Also, I never said Distrowatch was important. I said it's only something windows users like to look at.
And Mozilla does over market Firefox. They make ads in universities scaring people from using IE.
Someone even made a Firefox crop circle. http://images.google.com/images?q=crop+circle+firefox
Another thing, I never claimed Firefox is secure. It allows xul execution without any restriction even remote xul content in websites if it exists. It's worse than MS's ActiveX.
Also I use Gnome which is provided by Ubuntu and I've used Debian since 1999 because they used it in my university before they switched to redhat then fedora, so I think I know a little about apt.
Where did you see my bash Ubuntu as a distribution? I only said I respect Arch more than Ubuntu because people who use Arch are here for the quality and not because of they heard about it from major advertising over the internet.

pjeremy · 2007-09-03 01:05:12

"Instead of telling people that Firefox is a bit safer to use than IE and less buggy,...", naa, no claim of Firefox being more secure than IE there. I don't think Mozilla overmarkets FF, fanboys do.
Where do you come up with your opinion that Windows users like to look at Distrowatch?
More likely that Linux users look at it.
"With Ubuntu, if kernel 2.6.22 is buggy, you get stuck with it for 6 months" ...this is bashing for example.
As is this ..." I only said I respect Arch more than Ubuntu because people who use Arch are here for the quality and not because of they heard about it from major advertising over the internet".
Pointing it out for you: 1. getting stuck with buggy kernel -> incompetent maintainers. 2. Arch success = quality vs Ubuntu success = marketing -> Ubuntu != quality.
The DE/WM part was for misfit, not you. Please read carefully.
Ubuntu 4.10 already had good marketing, being distributed on linux-magazine-cds for example and I think they already sent out free cds back then. Btw, dist-upgrading from Debian to Ubuntu or vice versa was never encouraged.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-03 01:40:13

pjeremy wrote:

"
Where do you come up with your opinion that Windows users like to look at Distrowatch?
More likely that Linux users look at it.
"With Ubuntu, if kernel 2.6.22 is buggy, you get stuck with it for 6 months" ...this is bashing for example.
As is this ..." I only said I respect Arch more than Ubuntu because people who use Arch are here for the quality and not because of they heard about it from major advertising over the internet".
Pointing it out for you: 1. getting stuck with buggy kernel -> incompetent maintainers. 2. Arch success = quality vs Ubuntu success = marketing -> Ubuntu != quality.
The DE/WM part was for misfit, not you. Please read carefully.

Only 36% of Distrowatch 'hits' come from Linux users, according to Distrowatch.

As for operating system statistics, the usage of Linux to access [Distrowatch] has risen from a near-zero to a whopping 36% today!

-August 27, 2007.

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue … 27#feature

I personally dislike Gnome. I don't like it installed by default, or having to uninstall it to use another WM/DE. In fact, I don't like a distro making choices for me and having to undo them to get things the way I want. I am saying that Ubuntu is not an option for me for a few reasons. I am neither ignorant of Ubuntu, (as I have tried it), nor am I bashing it; I hope you realize that. I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational, sarcastic and defensive.
Ubuntu has brought GNU/Linux to the desktops of many, many users and this is a good thing.

Last edited by Misfit138 (2007-09-03 02:34:03)

hussam · 2007-09-03 01:51:23

pjeremy, again you misinterpret my words. I never said that a over advertised product isn't good quality. Ubuntu is a good quality distribution and there's a lot of Debian devs who contribute to it.
I said that it is quality that should drive people towards a product and not shiny advertisements.
Ubuntu is doing what is does best, get people to try Linux and that's a good thing.

pjeremy, I never said that if Ubuntu's kernel 2.6.22 is buggy, it's Ubuntu's fault.
I said that *if* 2.6.22 is buggy, ArchLinux will upgrade it's users to 2.6.23 while Ubuntu won't.
And yes I know how to compile kernels, I've been doing that since at least 2.2.0

"Where do you come up with your opinion that Windows users like to look at Distrowatch?"
I know over 300 university students who do so every day plus at least 5 coworkers and none of them uses Linux.
In Lebanon, only ISP uses Linux. Less than 500 people in the whole country have even heard of Linux (unless they work for an ISP). But my ISP still gets 1000's of hits to Distrowatch from unique IPs per month.

You're still misinterpreting my words. I never said windows users like to look at Distrowatch. I said that a lot of Distrowatch visitors are windows users.

And I never said Ubuntu lacked quality. I said that people who use over publicized products try it at first because of the popularity and not the proven quality. If it does turn out to be of good quality, then that's good. In ArchLinux, people come here because of the good quality even if ArchLinux doesn't advertise much. You don't have to over advertise a good product. It's good reputation will slowly and naturally spread.

If you're an engineer and you work for popular engineering firm and there a bid for a project, would you rather be invited to the bid because of:
1. Your successful record of completed projects.
2. or because they keep hearing about the firm you work for and they invited you because you were the first engineer available?

Also, you obviously prefer ArchLinux, right? You did say you are back and as community, we are happy when people come back to Archlinux.

Last edited by hussam (2007-09-03 01:57:32)

Roberth · 2007-09-03 07:17:40

Well these Debian and Ubuntu guys thinks keeping old packages versions will give you a more stable system, but all it do is to leave you with more bugs.

hussam · 2007-09-03 09:50:21

Roberth wrote:

Well these Debian and Ubuntu guys thinks keeping old packages versions will give you a more stable system, but all it do is to leave you with more bugs.

You can't expect them to upgrade the same version of Ubuntu from gnome 2.18 to 2.20 because it might risk breakage and it would require a gtk+ 2.10 > 2.12 upgrade but it would be nice if they upgraded their users from Gnome 2.18.1 to 2.18.3 (minor versions updates). Fedora does that and it is one of the most stable distributions. But if I understand correctly, Ubuntu tries to synchronize distribution releases with Gnome releases. Still users would miss the minor version upgrades so if Ubuntu ships Gnome 2.20.1, users will not get updated to 2.20.2 and the same goes with KDE. They don't update users through the stable 3.5.x series although it is relatively safe. I might be mistaken here, I'm just repeating what I hear about their policy. But since Gnome 2.20 is most likely going to be more stable than 2.18, I would still rather use ArchLinux

Last edited by hussam (2007-09-03 10:03:22)

pjeremy · 2007-09-03 10:17:36

Thanks for the link misfit, I don't frequent Distrowatch so I didn't know they had a statistics page.
Interesting though, that of the ~216000 people this month ~148000 (~69%) stayed for less than 30s.
You can install X/K/Ubuntu and if you don't like XFCE or KDE either, you could do a server-install and choose your WM from the repo.

Indeed, hussan, you confuse me.
So now it's a good thing that Ubuntu gets people to try Linux, but earlier it "wasn't a good idea because transitioning from windows to Linux should happen slowly and naturally."
And yes, you didn't claim that a buggy kernel is Ubuntus fault, you just said that "you get stuck with it for 6 months." So I guess 6.06 didn't get an update.
As for your question, I wouldn't care, I'd care about winning the bid.
Also, I am not back, mecon is.

Misfit138 · 2007-09-03 15:09:32

pjeremy wrote:

Thanks for the link misfit, I don't frequent Distrowatch so I didn't know they had a statistics page.
Interesting though, that of the ~216000 people this month ~148000 (~69%) stayed for less than 30s.
You can install X/K/Ubuntu and if you don't like XFCE or KDE either, you could do a server-install and choose your WM from the repo.

Yes, I realize that.
I guess in answer to that, I must list the reasons I use Arch and not Ubuntu.
1. Minimalist philosophy.
Ubuntu is Debian-based, and has a more complex structure than Arch. I prefer the simple file system layout and BSD style init. (One file per runlevel rather than an entire directory) My base Arch systems install ~90 MB of packages. My complete Arch system is only 685 packages. (My Slackware system has over 1200 packages!)
2. pacman
I prefer it. In my experience, it is consistently faster than any other package manager and provides every function I need and many I haven't tried yet.
3. Rolling release.
It's hard to give up having a bleeding edge system and go back to a release cycle distro.
4. /etc/rc.conf
5. ABS
The only system that I could compare to Arch's beautiful ABS is Slackware's Slackbuilds, but ABS is even easier.
6. AUR
7. Boot time
Yes, I shut off my computer when I am done with it, so this is a factor for me.

These are all preferences. I prefer Arch, and I like it best. I have tried 30 or more distros, and always have an experimental system on my 3rd harddrive, but I always return to Arch.
BTW, I usually stay on Distrowatch for a few seconds, too. I usually check to see if there is a release announcement I care about, or click on a distro's link to find their homepage to download something I need.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-09-02 20:10:05

I'm back from ubuntu.

#2 2007-09-02 20:28:48

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#3 2007-09-02 20:47:35

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#4 2007-09-02 21:23:12

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#5 2007-09-02 22:36:55

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#6 2007-09-03 00:09:31

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#7 2007-09-03 00:24:45

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#8 2007-09-03 01:05:12

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#9 2007-09-03 01:40:13

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#10 2007-09-03 01:51:23

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#11 2007-09-03 07:17:40

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#12 2007-09-03 09:50:21

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#13 2007-09-03 10:17:36

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

#14 2007-09-03 15:09:32

Re: I'm back from ubuntu.

Board footer