Ubuntu first time

Wed Jan 11 15:23:58 UTC 2012

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Alejandro Imass <aimass-EzYyMjUkBrFWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 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.

That's not anyone's experience with Debian Unstable that I've ever
encountered. It's certainly not my experience. I am FAR from a
'hacker'. I know as much about Linux as the average fanboy, perhaps,
but that's it. I don't know anything about programming, I couldn't
edit a config file by hand if you paid me, at least none more
complicated than for Quake. I can paste commands into a terminal,
that's the extent of my hacking abilities.

The thing is, I have never really needed 'support' of any kind. As
I've mentioned, I'm lazy as HELL, so when I do cause problems by not
paying attention when Debian gives me cogent advice and I've ignored
it thinking I know better, I come running here and annoy the heck out
of people who actually do deserve 'hacker', or perhaps better
'professional'. But really, I can say honestly that in every case I
would have sorted it myself eventually. Not because I know the
slightest thing about Debian, but because Debian has so many built-in
safeguards, even for r-tards like me. Seriously, I had to have Lennart
point it out to me a couple of times (because I'm lazy), but even when
you fux it up, Debian actually spits out advice on how to fix it.
Literally, 'you did this. Now do this to fix it'.

I don't want to make this personal, but to be frank everything you've
said about Debian is among a list of tropes that I've read continually
about Debian over the years as I've been using Linux. Tropes that, up
until a few  years ago, I believed. 'Debian makes everyone do it their
weird Debian way'. 'Debian is out of date unless you use unstable, and
unstable is unusable'. 'Debian offers lousy support'. Etc, etc.

I think the only one that ended up being true in my case is that
'Debian is for old farts'.

> 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.

My seven year old son uses Debian Unstable. He navigates the menu and
clicks on things and plays games. Really, if you know how to run an
application, whether it's a game or an Xterm for Emacs, who cares?
Like I said, no one here, not even me the designated 'computer guy' in
the house, has to deal with anything even remotely serious with Debian
Unstable. A few months ago  I installed Unstable on another machine,
which is now in our kids play room. They use it to stream video from
the NAS with XBMC. This is an eleven year old and a seven year old.
They commit the most egregious errors in the way they use the
computer, and I sometimes lose my temper, but damned if that computer
isn't bullet proof.

It's simple, as long as the computer can run the application(s) you
need, and not require a lot of needless support, what else is there?

> 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.

I'm not saying anything is a piece of crap. I did point out that YOU
said there were 'versions' of Ubuntu that you would not use, which is
exactly why I don't use Ubuntu, and exactly why Ubuntu fails to meet a
basic element of reliability: easy and safe upgrades. It has nothing
to do with my personal feelings one way or the other. If some people
find that Ubuntu works for them, that's awesome. Some people want
Skype, and I guess Skype is easier to install on Ubuntu. Great. Some
people have laptops that need special drivers for wireless, and they
say Ubuntu is easier for that. Perfect.

My only objection is your continued characterization of Debian
Unstable, which just doesn't match up with facts, at least none that
I've ever seen or heard of or experienced.

> Hope this answers your question.

Well, it's not like it's a test ;)

> --
> Alejandro Imass

-- 
Thomas Milne
--
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