Ubuntu first time

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:54:57AM -0500, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> It does happen with Debian also and just saying it doesn't mean it's
> true. You post is typical Debianite zealotry that ultimately leads to
> errors like the ssh scandal, which you seem to have deliberately
> ignored in my last post. They do happen in Debian, *very publicly and
> shamefully so* - it was Debian stable, so don't say they don't happen
> "Ever", because it undermines the credibility of your whole post.
> 
> I can understand why Debianites are pissed off at Ubuntu but it
> doesn't justify creating FUD on it, on ANY Linux distro for that
> matter.

My problem with Ubuntu is that their idiotic fixed release dates means
they are releasing unstable and often broken software which frequently
breaks things when upgrading.  I thoroughly believe in releasing stuff
when it is ready and not before.  Ubuntu clearly doesn't care.

Ubuntu had a lovely X server upgrade a few years ago that completely
broke X for anyone using an intel video chip.  Apparently most Ubuntu
developers don't use that.  Most users apaprently do.  I don't remember if
it was a security update or not, but it was an update to a stable release.

> I don't install _any_ software on it's point o version. In Ubuntu it
> seems they have adopted Microsoft's approach to client beta testing
> but at least they don't charge people for it. The .10 versions seem to
> be quite stable, and people should wait for those.

.10 means released in October.  No more, no less.  .04 means released
in April.  No more, no less.

> Oh my god! I have a typo, please spare my life!
> 
> If you are a Debian user you know for a fact that Debian unstable is
> so quirky it makes it unusable, un-usable, not-usable, or whatever you
> wanna call it, like it's very name: unstable and hardly good for any
> practical use.

stable and unstable in Debian terms means 'packages don't change versions
and packages do change versions'.

If you want unstable software in Debian, you would at least have to go
to experimental.  unstable is perfectly usable 99.9% of the time.

> "Testing" is quite good and probably the best choice for doing
> anything on the desktop that requires some relatively new version of
> anything. Stable is great for servers yet the packaging is so old it
> can be challenging sometimes to get things done and you may wind up
> compiling many things from source.
> 
> Debian is a great OS, but so is Ubuntu and it's unfair to create this
> FUD just because YOU think Debian is awesome and Ubuntu is crap,
> because it's not. They satisfy different needs and to solve real-world
> problems, and so do the other Linux distros, and non Linux OSes as
> well.

I do like some of what Ubuntu has done, and they certainly are helping
Debian with many things (like multiarch).  I just want them to stop
releasing things before they are tested and ready.

Also what the heck were they thinking with Unity?

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists