Hi,

I am curious what is your opinion regarding the development of Android and Ubuntu in the sense of that they can drag users to Ubuntu (rather knowing Debian), what about softwares, more codes and programs for Debian, ...

Regards
Best wishes

Having been an Ubuntu user, and tester for 4 years, I actually think Ubuntu is good for Debian. If it wasn't for Ubuntu I wouldn't be using Debian now. I know of quite a few Debian users who moved to Debian because Ubuntu was losing sight of its purpose.

I haven't got an opinion on Android yet. I have 2 Android devices, my phone and a $99 7" tablet, and use them both regularly. If Debian was on a tablet or phoen as OEM I'd get it instead but as it isn't I have the Androids.

That would depend on what one considers good. My idea of good?

If Ubuntu was attracting people to Linux, that would be good. Informing people that there is an alternative, and being an entry point for people willing to learn a new way of doing things. If those people migrate to Debian, it would be good.

As it is, Ubuntu is attracting many people to Ubuntu, who are excited by the idea of a free operating system and have no desire to learn, including doing research. When some of those people move to Debian with sudo pounded into their heads, they take their lack of desire to learn and research (and love of sudo) with them. I do not consider that good for Debian. Others might, but I do not.

Telephones will attract no one to any system. It would be like expecting people who learn how to fly aircraft to be attracted to buying automobiles.

I think Ubuntu & Android are just looking at the general public & how they like to avoid 'learning' how to use their computers.

Most Linux & BSD are for people who either know or want to know their computers, & get out of them what they want, rather than be told how to do it by a biased manufacturer.

I have been running debian for over 5 years now....and learned how to use CLI as well as GUI. as you can see, I only use pure debian sid with no problems. I tried Ubuntu and found it to be slow in response and failing with some hardware. I agree that Ubuntu is for those who do not wnat to learn linux.

As pointed out it all depends on what your definition of good is.

This is GNU/Linux. Linux is not about some sort of race for supremacy.

Red Hat and Debian have been around for more than 20 years, have seen a lot of Linux distros come and go.

All of those have added something to Linux.

Ubuntu has its own vision of how Linux should be and they have some sort of fetish about MicroSoft. That is their problem and does not concern me in the least but it is silly. Linux, in one form or another runs more computer operations than any other OS (embedded up through Super Computers). Ubuntu wants to dominate the Desktop Market that most people say is dying.

They have attracted a lot of people and I am sure some of those people are good for Linux.

Android as you buy it from a vender is modified by that vender and few of them will honor a warrenty if you modify the system. This is not FOSS software and so has little or nothing to do with any non embedded use of Linux.

The real question should be "is Debian good for me and am I trying to be good for Debian"?

Actually Ubuntu is the first linux distro I tried.Ubuntu 10.04 LTS.I learned to like and know its greatness from Ubuntu.But their decisions can be sometimes foolish(Like using Unity interface).But ubuntu contributed much to Linux popularity.
I don't know about Android.It's good to have commercial and company supported distros too!
Currently I am using Debian Stable.

I think distros like Ubuntu help people get into Linux who would otherwise not have the time. Personally, I don't use Ubuntu any more for reasons many have gone into so I'll not repeat and I, too, and a happy Debian user (most of the time).
I also think that any widespread use of Linux on the desktop can be good for Linux as whole. If it weren't for the popular distributions I wonder whether Linux would be even more marginalised when it comes to support form big corporations. I can't see sortieing like Steam coming to Linux (arguments about whether you like it or not) without Ubuntu, for example.
Android I've not really used yet as I've not been in a position to upgrade my phone. When I do I'll grudgingly become another whore for Google to sell and see how the OS goes.

First of all, Ubuntu is a fork off the Debian unstable branch. You can use it like Debian, after you scoop away the dessert topping the Ubuntu propeller beanies heap on top of a perfectly good OS. Ubuntu is like a nice juicy piece of broiled, fresh-kill red meat covered with caramel sauce and whipping cream. Personally, I don't pay attention to my desktop background, and even if it was just black I wouldn't change it.

The Ubuntu forums are replete with questions--and the inevitable terrible advice--regarding the perfect systray clock, or which wallpaper format is best! Or, how to change the busy mouse hourglass to a plate of spagetti that spins and throws noodles all over the desktop. If that's what people are spending their time and effort to accomplish, they need more work to do, or they might have ADD.

If someone is intent on learning the ins and outs of GNU/Linux, they're going to learn it. An easy-to-use system just gives them a gentler learning curve in doing so, and makes success all the more likely.

My first attempt at Debian was a disaster; but after running SimplyMepis for a few months, Debian made a whole lot more sense. I suspect the same is true of Ubuntu, and I've seen a lot of people over at Ubuntu forums move on to Debian, Arch, and other distros. Some stay with Ubuntu and just customize the heck out of it. Some people just run a stock install; do you think those people were ever destined to run Debian in the first place? Haters can say what they like, but apart from release cycle and a few highly-visible projects like Unity, ubuntu is just not that different from Debian.


Android isn't going to lead anyone to use GNU/Linux, because it's not GNU/Linux. It's a Linux kernel with a JVM, locked down for your safety. The fact that it runs a Linux kernel is an implementation detail that nobody cares about.

Some releases are, LTS are based on Testing not Unstable. 11.10 was the equivalent of Sid, 12.04 is the equivalent of Wheezy, 12.10 is the equivalent of Sid so on and so forth.

Personally, I question the claim that Ubuntu brings people to Linux. People who have decided to try Linux are already interested. If the first system is not to one's liking, and that person has half a brain, he or she will try a few other systems before deciding if Linux is or is not for them. The basis of the argument for attracting users is that Ubuntu eases the transition by being "user-friendly." Two problems: First, as already mentioned earlier in the thread, it will encourage people will point-and-click mentalities to (try) use Linux without fostering the desire to learn, which is necessary to use the freedom and choice offered by Linux. Second, people who learn with Ubuntu before moving on, have their brains poisoned with the Ubuntu way of doing things. Such as wanting to use sudo for everything.

If one accepts that argument, my question would be the obvious one. Why bother going through all the work of scooping out the detritus to get a decent system, when one can install the original without the extra "stuff"? It is like buying a car loaded with a host of options that one does not want and spending a month removing them, instead of buying the car without the options.

This is pretty funny. I started with Ubuntu, changed later to Debian and now am a Slackware user. And yes, I have sudo configured, but not the Ubuntu way, but the way it is intended to be used: for a few selected applications. So at least in my case your argument is invalid.

Anyways, my two cents on this, keep in mind that this is my personal opinion: Ubuntu is on the one side good for Linux in general, on the other side bad for Linux in general.

The good things:
It has quite some marketshare amongst Linux distros, especially for the home desktop user, which gives some companies the possibility to use it as somewhat "standard" in the Linux world. I doubt that Steam for Linux would become reality without Ubuntu. They could have chosen Red Hat, the other big standard, but it is standard in business environments, not the consumer market.
Also Canonical's effort to bring Ubuntu to the OEMs makes hardware manufacturers more willing to provide Linux drivers (nowadays even Broadcom, widely used in Dell systems, think about that).
Ubuntu's effort to create a very GUI centric distribution also takes quite some from the "geek image" of Linux away.

The bad things:
Ubuntu created parts of its popularity with being permanently in the Linux news, which is, IMHO, one reason for the very short development cycle and the focus on shiny new things rather than stability and fixing bugs. This has led to some really buggy releases. Think about the fact that Canonical, when releasing 12.04 LTS, recommended to users of 10.04 LTS to wait with upgrading after the first point release (the same way it is said that you can use new Windows version only after the first Service Pack is released). This is a nice circumscription for: Hey, our beta was to short, but we released anyway and now let the users sort it out, so wait until this unofficial second beta has ended.
This leads to a paradox situation: Users wanting to change from Windows to the allegedly stable Linux get recommendations to try it with Ubuntu, because it has a reputation for being newbie friendly. What they find is a system that is as buggy (and nowadays with opt-out spyware) as Windows, but it feels uncomfortable (because it is not the Windows look and feel), it is difficult to run Microsoft Office on it and the favorite games just won't run (or you need the help from a "Linux geek" to make them running). They have absolutely no advantage at this point with using Linux and feel that Linux is a free, crappy and incompatible version of Windows, which damages the reputation of Linux in general.
The funny thing is that this general damage can only be done to Linux because the Canonical marketing department still has to do a lot of work. The worse thing about Canonical is that they in reality don't want anyone to run Linux. This is simply not their goal. They want the people to run Ubuntu and not any other distribution. Their marketing model is service (selling software with the Software Center, renting server space to their users to store private data and the music they sold in their music store, of course selling support to business users). They don't make a cent out of Debian or Fedora users. Ubuntu is a brand and Canonical wants to tie you with that brand. Ask yourself why it is so difficult to find the word Linux on the Ubuntu website. Why they have zero support for the Launchpad server software (open source, but basically unusable on servers outside their farms and the usage is even discouraged). Why no other distro has the Unity desktop as an option (open source, but heavily tied to the Ubuntu base).
They want Ubuntu to be the third major OS, not Linux.

So Ubuntu is both at the same time, good for Linux in general and bad for Linux in general.

Android, on the other hand, is more or less irrelevant for desktop distributions, since it has nothing but the kernel in common with desktop Linux and no consumer buying a phone cares about the kernel, most don't even know what a kernel is.

No, it is valid, because you use it as it is supposed to be used. I referred to using sudo for everything.
Your assessment of Ubuntu and Canonical is spot on.

Your point was that starting to learn Linux with Ubuntu poisons the mind with the Ubuntu way, for example with using sudo for everything. As I have stated, I started learning Linux with Ubuntu and I don't use sudo the Ubuntu way, so obviously either my mind seems to be poison resistant or your argument is, at least in my case, invalid.