so i just started using Ubuntu after i discovered that Puppy Linux wasn't quite the distro for me, and i feel like maybe it's too easy? almost like i'm cheating at linux.

what do you all think? does Ubuntu make the experience too simple to access? should we all have to go through the trenches before we can call ourselves linux users?

I don't think so.

Ubuntu makes it easy to access, but it is still possible to configure the system using the command line.

There tends to be an attitude that we all have to use a "hard" distro, like Slackware or Debian to "learn" Linux, but I don't think that is true. Some people suggest that newbies should use Slackware, so that they learn how the system works. While using Slack will teach you how everything works it is not for newbies. We shouldn't be scaring new users off by telling them to use hard distros - get them using more user-friendly ones, and then they can move to "harder" ones when they feel able.

Distros like Ubuntu are a good middle ground. Newbies can use it with no problems - everything just works, and there is some excellent documentation available. Advanced users can use it like they would any other distro - command line etc. If you want to learn about your system, you can - it is basically the same as Debian.

--Ian

If you think Ubuntu is too easy try setting up a Debian repo and install something from there. You *will* run into dependancy hell and surely break your system and surely(again) cry.

Well that being said(as if anybody would care), Ubuntu is an awesome distro and every Linux user worth his/her salt should try it once in their lifetime(yes, you too all slackers out there!). It's simply superb to introduce to a newbie.

Here's an interesting read http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862

Diversity is one of the best things about linux. There's room for all kinds of distros. Ubuntu is fine ... I've played around with it a bit. It will never replace debian for me, but together with FC6, it actually helped convert me to gnome after years of minimalist wm's.

There's no such thing as "too easy" in a distro unless you love to tinker for its own sake. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, because sometimes I do.)

what I don't like at all about ubunto is the fact that uasers can access all (nearly all?) root commands just using sudo.

Ubuntu users, try this (don't!!!):

sudo rm -rf /

propper user management is one of the *NIX strongpoints, and i hate it when it is trashed in favour of lazyness.

ok , since you mentioned puppy and i will probably stick with puppy for a very long time ...

heres my opinion ...

you can use ubuntu as a base from where you started off your linux explorations in different kind of light weight and "odd" distros ... i mean those distros which are fast to work on and you dont even need to boot and run them from their said distributing media , you just work on them ...

but your ubuntu needs to be as super complete as possible ... probably just a little bit "broken" here and there though ...

but then , if you got serious buisness in/with linux as a desktop computer , you dont need to do that ... just stick with ubuntu(if you like ubuntu) forever ... makes no sense trying another and another and another gaint distro ...



.

Well.. one could argue that using Ubuntu and never getting to see the command line will teach you just how to use Ubuntu/GNOME.

Drop to an Arch Linux console [or, say, a Debian Fluxbox shell] and you're fscked.

Using Slackware/Gentoo/Vanilla-Debian won't make sure that the moment you are put in front of any computer running any distribution and any window management utility (including "gnu/screen", window managers, desktop environments) you can do everything you want. But if you have the previous experience with a hand full of distributions, some of which required you used the console.. you won't completely be in the dark. At the very worst, you'll know what to do to get the information on how to use the distribution.

Say you use Ubuntu all your life.. you run Synaptic, it takes care of things.. you have a question, you ask your neighbor who's been running Ubuntu all his life as well. You sit at a computer running Arch Linux. Eh. What do you do. No Synaptic, no helpful neighbors.

Now, assume you try out Debian, Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake, Fedora Core, FreeBSD [not a linux distribution], etc. Now you sit at an Arch Linux box. What you will have figured out by now is that most distributions have something called *official documentation*. You already know that there are such things as "binary" and "source based" distributions and will soon find out in which cathegory Arch is. With knowledge from your previous experiences, the power to make analogies, and the official documentation of Arch Linux.. your success chances are pretty high in my opinion.

It's *kind of* like programming. Learn one language really good, enough so that you can accomplish almost any task in it.. learn a handful others, not as good.. but medium. You'll see that you'll be able to pick up any new programming language in a few days/weeks after that.

Whichever path you choose, make sure you at least learn commands which are more or less present on all linux distributions [talking about stuff like "cp", "rm", etc.]

--
Well.. the things is.. I think Ubuntu's *love* for sudo actually prevented a lot of users from using the root account for every task they had in mind. Sure.. is easy to type.. but no easier than

My personal opinion of Ubuntu?

Bloatware!!!

Binary based distro's suck >.<

Doesn't Ubuntu only set sudo for the first installed user? I'm pretty sure all other users are not automatically added to sudoers. Ubuntu is basically mimicking Apple Macs in terms of administration.

And the reason you have so many binary-based distros on your profile is because?....

you must have a problem reading what I said...

I got them, just dont like them, kinda download and tried then though the cd-rom into my draw.. decides cant do any harm collecting distro's?

The beauty and strength of Linux is choice. There is a distro out there for (just about) everyone. As far as Ubuntu goes, it has caused a lot more people to try Linux and that is a good thing.

Some will try it and go back to Windows, some will stay with Ubuntu, some will branch out and try other distros. Although I don't personally like Ubuntu for me, they've done a good thing by making more people curious enough to try Linux.

I gave Ubuntu a try, and used it exclusively for a while to give it a fair shake. It's not bad for what it is and many will be perfectly happy using it for years.

The only bad distro is the one that doesn't work for you personally. I could go the fan boy route and say that this type distro sucks, or that type distro rocks!, but frankly that's just displaying stupidity. They're all good for someone or they wouldn't exist. The best distro is the one that works for you.

I also have about a dozen distro cds but i'm not using all of them at once. just thought it kind of wierd that you would post all your distros even if you're not using them.

I really don't have a single opinion on this. Mostly depends on my mood. If I have the time and I feel like experimenting and learning then I prefer to try out new distros and unfamiliar Operating Systems. Like BSD for instance.

On the other hand, there are times when I need to get work done and I simply stick with a distro I know and I'm familiar with. In that case the priority is "the fastest and easiest way to a solution" and not experimentation.

I think every Linux user should be able to relate to what I say. Many of us just don't play with Linux -- we use it for getting work done as well. And in my opinion Linux is one of the most productive platforms I've ever worked on.

That's why I have so many OSes listed on my profile. I don't use all of them equally. My main "stable" OS is Debian and the rest I use when I want a change or want to experiment.

Nope, as long as you can choose to do things "the other way". There's nothing wrong in making things easy for people, not even if it means "putting things under a shiny hood", if it's possible for the user to start digging thing out him/herself if it's needed or wanted -- if you like comparing things, you can put it this way: Linux, nor Ubuntu, won't force you to anything. You can choose to stay on top of the shiny hood, or you can get your hands "dirty" and learn a lot. I guess many of the users that like the easiness of Ubuntu will learn do things "the other way around" too at some point, even if it didn't feel the easiest way.

On Windows or Mac it's the same thing, only that (especially) on Windows you can't go too deep "under the hood", you're forced to stick on what is given to you. That's wrong if something is, you won't get complete control even if you've paid for it.