Ubuntu first time

[Alejandro Imass]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Milne
<thomas.bruce.milne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Alejandro Imass <aimass-EzYyMjUkBrFWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Thomas Milne
>> <thomas.bruce.milne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Alejandro Imass <aimass-EzYyMjUkBrFWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Lennart Sorensen
>>>> <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Alejandro Imass wrote:
>> [...]
>>

[...]

>> 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.
>
> I don't care about Ubuntu at all. You claim that it is more usable
> than Debian Unstable, I am merely asking you to back that up with
> facts. Don't get all upset about it, just answer the question.
>

First of all I am not upset, and don't turn this around on me. If you
read back on the thread you will realize the point here is my
objection on your unfair criticism on Ubuntu and the position that
Debian is the greatest thing ever. You can criticize the choices made
by Ubuntu but you shouldn't dismiss it as a piece of crap.

To answer your question is very simple: As a business, I would not use
Debian unstable on a typical workstation because of the support costs
associated with it, but I would (and do) use Ubuntu because the
support resources are vast and my employees can usually solve problems
on their own.

On the contrary, when using Debian unstable you are basically on your
own, an this goes not only for Debian, but also when using _any_
unstable version of anything, including FreeBSD or any other. For
unstable versions, it is expected from the communities that you are
hacking your way through with the bleeding edge and you can't (and
shouldn't) expect a great level of support. On the contrary, it is
expected that you contribute by finding, reporting and perhaps fixing
the bugs. This is fine, and perhaps exciting, if you are an
experienced hacker, but it's not when that's not your business
objective.

In that sense, Debian unstable "is hardly good for any practical use"
other than being used by an expert-level user, and in that sense
Ubuntu is superior than Debian unstable. It's better for business,
period. And that is __exactly__ what I said.

Now on the other hand, if I'm going to deploy a few dozen appliances
and I need long-term reliability I wouldn't use Ubuntu but rather
Debian stable and in this case Debian is better for business. So
whether one or the other is "good" or not depends very much on the
application.

The whole point I've been trying to convey is that each one has it's
pros and cons and it's unfair to bash against one just because you
don't like it. I would do the same if someone comes here and implies
that Debian or any other distro or Open Source OS is a piece of crap.

Hope this answers your question.

-- 
Alejandro Imass
--
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