@jdeca75: To be honest, the Slackware sub-forum from LQ is the official Slackware forum.. So that might have influenced the votes in regards to other distros like Ubuntu, Arch, etc.. which have dedicated forums and less of a user base here..

But, while the difference between Ubuntu and Slackware is gigantic, it isn't a gap.. What struck you as very odd, is actually a feature when you get used to it..
One example of this is the little known fact by a lot of users this day that a lot of programs have build options which can dictate the actual capability of the end result (the compiled program). It's not uncommon for repositories in Ubuntu or other distributions to have requirements that are not actually needed, or to require different versions of the libraries upon which said program have been build upon (while most of the time it won't really matter, sometimes this can have catastrophic results). Also, in almost all cases, you'll have just one choice of the program (usually build with full capabilities -- so it's not that bothering). In Slackware, you have the choice, and you are sure that any extra program is compiled over your libraries.
Slackware values stability (that, for example, compiling programs from source provides) over simplicity (actually, over everything else) while Ubuntu cuts corners in this area but does major efforts to be a point-and-click distribution.

My point is, the two distributions are very different and will have different appeal to different people, but it isn't at all suprising that 200+ people use Slackware and prefer it. Like I said, maybe some users from other major distributions just weren't around..

P.S. On Slackbuilds.org, LibreOffice is one of the few packages that are transformed from the official rpm, not compiled..

You could install Dropline GNOME and then Xiphos.

I seriously don't understand the hype with Ubuntu. how come it has such a good reputation?
opensuse is a distro that seems to strive for the same goal, and in my opinion it shits all over ubuntu.
I have noticed that a lot of lq noobies seem to only participate when these polls are going. I have no problem with that, but I've got to wonder if the people who vote Ubuntu have actually used other distros or if they're just zealous fanboys whom have had a link to these polls shared at a different board.

1 members found this post helpful.

Given the fact that the poll is missing all *buntu derivatives it is safe to assume that everyone using one of those voted for Ubuntu. So it's not just Ubuntu but the whole *buntu ecosystem.
IMHO Lubuntu and Xubuntu are without doubt the best distros with their respective DEs you can install on a desktop machine. Kubuntu LTS is great too, and Ubuntu GNOME is in my experience the only Gnome3 distro not-buggy-and-leaky-as-crap, that makes him automatically the best Gnome3 distro as well.

You have hit the nail on the head. Few, if any, truly knowledgable & experienced people that _I_ know use *ubuntu. Amongst the people _I_ know, the *ubuntu users are beginner to intermediate level and *ubuntu provides a very low bar of entry to what is likely their first experience with anything other than Winwoes. And therein lies another part of the explanation: Winwoes users have been conditioned to expect/tolerate buggy software so they continue to tolerate same in *ubuntu.

In short, *ubuntu has done an exemplary job of delivering to their target market; low knowledge, non geek type users looking for an inexpensive alternative to M$ that lets them browse the web and get other things done. The fact that there are a few high knowledge users using, and probably earning a portion of their living from, *ubuntu doesn't change this. Witness Ubuntu's fail in the enterprise as a _server_ platform.

Yeah, this is my opionated opinion, and others will disagree Just don't come whinning to me when all of a sudden your video stops working or your drives suddenly disappears on your *ubuntu LTS box. Because, in my experience, if you haven't been bit yet, it is only a matter of time.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, I never noticed that! If you look at the desktop poll, few people say they like Unity and Gnome is dropping year by year, so the end of civilisation is not yet nigh.

I don't care for it but had no problems for years (basically being lazy on learning) and have heard it helps get Linux users. Experienced user can do anything in Ubuntu, maybe canonical wont take care of all the bugs (if you do so) or trys to make some things difficult or for the $ake.

In my experience, Ubuntu makes things more difficult for experienced users because, although baed on Debian, they are also often going out in left field doing their own thing. One reason I like Arch is that they compile from upstream w/o making a bunch of "enhancements". Much easier to debug if/when something does go wrong.

Ubuntu serves a purpose. Just not my purposes. Nor do I think it deserves to be as popular as it is solely from a tecnical merit perspective. But there are other perspectives. Some of them have gained inordinate influence ($$), dramatically changed the motivation behind FOSS compared to e.g. 2-3 decades ago, and pushed us off the path of technical excellence in pursuit of their special interests. Some perspectives see this as a good thing. I see it as a double edged sword that needs to be managed _very_ cautiously.

Maybe because enough old-hand-users remember the days when Suse/SCO would have shit all over and impoverish Linux?? So, it became ~anything but~ Suse, and later, to a lesser degree, anything but RedHat, who kicked their own small/private/freebie user base to the curb. So, Ubuntu was uniquely poised (and in the right place at the right time) to capture the hearts and minds of those desktop users, especially the newer ones, who didn't want nor care for "bleeding edge" of what became Fedora.

I was a very early adopter of Caldera and that was "THE DISTRO", in the hearts and minds of it's users. Later I did a stint in technical support at RedHat. Now, after using Ubuntu for awhile, I now run Debian with XFCE and prefer Debian on my headless cluster servers. Ubuntu is good for new users, which is a good thing. Debian is good too. At least neither is in bed with MicroSoft, which is more than I can say for Suse. https://www.moreinterop.com/

So, just maybe we "fanbois"/"noobs" have a grasp on the events of the past and make our decisions based purely on the facts, as we recall and see them. BTW, my first install was Slack, from a pile of floppies.

The reason why Ubuntu has a good rep is not only obvious during an installation. It takes a while, there are things happening but who knows what, and at the end the result is a working system. (or not, but that's another subject)

With the exception of Fedora, it's the best installation I experienced in recent times. OpenSUSE 13.1 was simply horrible, almost non-functional on the hardware Ubuntu 13.10 worked out of the box. (It was hardware, on another box OpenSUSE worked just fine) Users don't go in search of problems, they tend to avoid them. It's all a question about why one uses Linux, to experiment, to compile things or... simply in order to get things done.

After the installation of Ubuntu, simple things are obvious and then one can search for the rest.

Almost all the other installations are more cumbersome. I won't mention Slackware, but for a Debian installation I had to download the network driver, put it on a usb stick before the network functioned.
Gentoo and Arch have also their 'issues'.
Actually, that's why I voted for Manjaro - a simple install in a performing system. But we were only with 18 ;-)

Never underestimate the difficulty, the step a first time user has to take in order to begin using Linux. Booting in the unknown and hoping the system will still work. One tends to forget that after years of using Linux, but it's one of the reasons why Linux never took a bigger part of the desktop market. (That and the multiple distributions, all slightly different)

So please give Ubuntu some credit. It addresses the installation issue and through it's market share the splintering community.

Sorry bout the late reply; i don't frequent this board as often as i used to.

I don't regard this as a contributing factor. I consider all them as Ubuntu, and i think that the way they are combined in this poll is the right way to do it. What i mean by this is, it is unfair to Ubunut, to compare the Unity only Ubuntu against Opensuse which calls all their live cds Opensuse.
It's like comparing an apple with a basket of apples.

I noticed that with Unity. I was never a fan of the universal task bar, and i'm sad to see Gnome adopting a similar working feature.
I forget the proper name, but i do like the panel in Unity. I try to imitate it in kde on my computer.

I wish people would stop saying Ubuntu is based off Debian. They are so far apart, they are practically their own distro. Mepis, Siduction, Snow Linux are all based off Debian. Ubuntu make most of their own packages.

I never accused anyone of beeing noobs, the wording i used was lq noobies, meaning new members to Linuxquestions. I appreciate your response, but i take issue with some of the points you make.
In particular, "when Suse/SCO would have shit all over and impoverish Linux"
I'm not familiar with this, i'd be interested to read more, please.
Bringing up the whole Microsoft deal is nothing but FUD. For one thing, the deal was made between Suse and MS, not Opensuse. Opensuse is a community distro sponsored by Suse, and Suse is not the only sponsor for that matter.
As for the deal Suse has made with MS. You provided a link and that website explains it. The reality of the situation whether you like it or not is that Microsoft Windows is the most abundant operating system used on computers at the moment. Suse's target for Suse Linux is towards the server market. By cooperating with Microsoft, the possibility to make Linux work better along side Windows exist, which would give Suse an advantage over the opposition, namely Redhat.
It's a strategical move on Suse's behalf, and i think it's hard to blame them.
I dislike using Windows, but i don't hate Windows or Microsoft. There seems to be a stigma towards Microsoft and Windows amongst the Gnu/Linux community. While some of it may be justified, i believe (and this is my opinion) that much of it is only over hyped fanboy crap. The Mac community has an identical attitude present from many of it's members.
The difference in the Gnu/Linux community is that our fanboys have ammunition and love preaching Free software arguments. I'd love to see how many of the people who argue free software against Microsoft actually use a system free of all proprietary software.

You could say the same thing for any distro though. Your examples prove that.
I will admit though, Opensuse automatically writes code to the mbr, no matter where the bootloader is installed, which is something i dislike, and think they should change by default.

Good point, My first attempt at a Gnu/Linux was Madriva on a 2010 Macbook pro. It failed. It detected the dvd and booted it, and i was able to begin the install, but once the install began, it 'forgot' where the cdrom was and isisted there was no install medium. I never did install Mandriva on that computer.
I tried Ubuntu 10.10 after that, and the install did work perfectly. I'll give it credit for that.

I do not agree with your opinion, for I consider myself knowledgeable and I use Kubuntu.

I also recall the days (back in 1997 timeframe) how much of a struggle it was to get Mandrake to work on a laptop. First it was getting the network adapter and the modem to work, then it was X11, and then finally the sound card. When I reflect back on those days, I tell myself what a bleedin' waste of time.

Later in time, when I doled around with building Cross-Compiled LFS, it was interesting, but another complete waste of my time.

I like folks like you... you are so desperate to prove that you know the guts of Linux inside and out, and you probably work endlessly as a debugger and tester of all the new "unproven" software out there for Linux users. Thanks for working for me... and for free, no less!

In days like today, I am content to know that I do not have to worry much about my Kubuntu system. It works without issue, and I can pretty much be assured that it will work tomorrow. I'm going off now to enjoy another beer... please feel free to go back to doing whatever it is you do.

P.S. Btw, this is my opinionated opinion!

A basic objective of any OS is get the user to the "desktop" from which that person can then do any subsequent work. Basically, this can be interpreted as a variation of the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle) meaning that most of your "work" is having the "desktop" available so that you can go on to do other work. As gotfw and jdeca57 note this is adequate for beginners, intermediate, and casual users. So if Ubuntu satisfies the basic needs of 80% of the user base but pissess off the remaining 20% there is nothing intrinsically "wrong". You can't please everyone. Nevertheless it points to a serious (public relations and technical) deficiency that Canonical must address. Unfortunately, based on anecdotal stories (including my own), Canonical is making this worse, not better. Overall, I have liked Ubuntu. I hope that one day Canonical will make make greater efforts to cooperate with the Linux community.

Am I misleaded or this thread's topic was set as "Desktop distribution of the year", not "Distribution X is good/bad/evil/better/worst... because..."?

That was when the polls were still open. And what it's actually become is "how did the result come about?"

One of the things that puzzles me about the new-style desktops is the disappearance of the pager as we know it (or completely). The time was when Microsoft tried to implement it in Windows, but had to give up as it crashed some existing software.

If motor manufacturers were like Gnu and Ubuntu, they'd be saying "Who wants a steering wheel? They've so old-fashioned: they've been used since 1894! Let's have a joy-stick or a handlebar." Of course, there is Honda's double joystick, but they haven't put it into production.