Does Ubuntu suck?
 

Did the title lure you in? Mission accomplished.

Thing is, I am an active linux user, and I am by no means a newbie at the 'trade'. I am, however, no linux guru either. But if I get an issue, I solve it myself, for the most part.

I used to run slackware, but its lack of a package manager(though it has repositories) made Ubuntu a shoe-in.

But here's the deal: I love Ubuntu, and all my knowledge of Linux tells me one thing: Distributions are *not that different*. If I'm not completely mistaken, if you take Ubuntu and compare it with a random distribution, the differences would mainly be: The stock kernel, the package mangers if the other has one as well, and the community behind it, and the availability of installed software, and then finally minor things such as how it chooses to do init and such things.

How correct is this statement? If it is completely out in the woods, I beg you to enlighten me on what it is that makes two Linux distributions using more or less the same kernel(The same architecture and so on, obviously compiled to support different things) so different that it would actually make any real sense to say one distribution sucks, while the other is awesome?

If I am more or less correct - well, am I right in thinking that saying they are so alike it would be hard to say one sucks and the other doesn't?

The main reason I am asking is because I have a few mates that keep going on about various other distributions, always hammering Ubuntu but praising everything they run. They also run FreeBSD, but as I know linux and freebsd aren't similar enough I'll assume that there are things that freebsd has that can make it better.

I hope I made myself understandable, and I eagerly await your answers. If I can't prove them wrong, well, at least I'll learn some more about Linux. =)

No, but your thread title leaves something to be desired....

What exactly is your question? Every version of Linux is different in some way. Are those differences significant to a particular user? Maybe.

My post may not have been a masterpiece of writing, but I'm pretty sure I made myself more or less understandable.

My question is: Does it make any sense to compare two distros on a technical level(E.g. not a level that has anything to do with preference), and coming to a conclusion that one is better than the other? Is it possible for two linux distributions that use more or less the same kernel with different configurations(See previous post) to be so radically different that one 'just sucks' and the other is 'just awesome?'

Take two cars. Put the same engine inside them, tires, transmission and whatever else you need. Then paint one blue and one red. Does one suck more than the other, or is anyone who claims so an idiot that's just attempting to appear smart?

Instead of calling people "idiots" maybe educate yourself... VirtualBox is a great way to experiment with different distros, and you can read about the major distributions here: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

ps To answer your question, no, Ubuntu does not suck. People who say things suck suck. ;)

At some level, the car analogy is a good one. At least within a bounded price range, there is very little "better" or "worse" with cars--it is mainly "different". Same answer for all free Linux distros in maybe the top 20 on the hit list at distrowatch.

by the way, the definitive answer to your original title question is: "No"

Some distros like Slackware and Debian aim for maximum stability. Other distros like Ubuntu and Fedora like to be as up to data as possible, even if the latest software is a bit buggy.
Slackware uses a plain vanilla (i.e., unpatched and unmodified) kernel, xorg, desktop environments and apps. Debian patches their kernel and apps, then Ubuntu patches the already patched Debian apps. So 2 distros running the same kernel, xorg, etc can have differences in the way they are configured.

The way I see it there are 2 kinds of distros "beginner friendly" (e.g., Ubuntu, Mandriva, Suse) and "hardcore" (e.g., Slackware, Debian, Arch). The beginner friendly distros set things up automatically, while giving the user fewer choices and control. The hardcore distros require more manual configuration, but give the user much more control over how their system is set up.
Ubuntu is the best of the beginner friendly distros IMO, at least of the ones I have tried anyway.

its apples and oranges

any *buntu is simply a customized Debian in most respects
they change some things etc

but it was still Debian
Mint, and oother offshoots are just customized buntu's

You cant compare a Debian or slack install to a Ubuntu install
thats basically comparing a bone stock mustang to a modified one

you would have to compare customized slack/debian builds to ubuntu
like salixOS, Linvo for slack
some of my distros are debian modifieds

Ubuntu is heavily modified to help with newbies

But; any *buntu (Xubuntu/Kubuntu/Ubuntu) is not to scoff at
Maybe FreeBSD people are jealous?

Buntus are powerful stuff with many apps available

I tell you what
Compare ultimate Edition 2.5 to any distro you want

http://ultimateedition.info/ultimate...e-edition-2-5/

Um, no. Ubuntu does not suck. When I am at home, that's what I am using.

The biggest reasons I stick with it are the ease of use of the package manager, the huge amount of available software and the size and helpfulness of the community. In two+ years of running it almost exclusively, I have not yet run up against a problem that I could not resolve after a quick Google search.

The ease of use also is a big plus. My entire family uses it daily with the same level of confidence as they had using Windows.

I love playing around with other distributions and I have a partition set aside to install new ones (as well as VirtualBox), but Ubuntu is my home.

hey dadrunamok
being a multidistro guy like me

I can tell you how to set up that spare partition(s) to boot many diff distros ala live usb with persistency
makes drive maintenence etc a breeze too, as most can boot toram and no drives mounted,etc nor cdrom

I have like 10 distros booting off a fat32 hdd partition that has syslinux installed to emulate usb boot

I use Plop boot manager to boot that partition and usbs,etc

I have many buntus and debians installed, and right now 9.10's grub2 run sthe show

heres fdisk -l

see how the fat32 partition doesn't show up in grub2 grub.cfg?

thats why i use Plop bootmanager, this PC wont boot off usb anyway
so I have to use Plop to boot usb's

I initially made the partition cause I wanted to preserve my real usb's

I made it ext2 first with grub
but KNOPPIX and some others wont/cant boot from a ext2/3 hdd partition without issues

try that out

Looks like something new to play around with...

Hmmm...

I've been hardcore debian since Woody. But I cut my teeth on a floppy install of potato. I have to say though that Squeeze leaves much to be desired. I had tried Kubuntu 9.10 before and wasn't pleased. So I stuck with Squeeze. But had recently gotten sick of some basic items that just didn't work.
1. Could never get audio cd's to play right. I could in Grip but KSCD was useless. And Debian is missing the audio cd tab in the settings menu that Kubuntu has.
2. The whole issue with Firefox really cheeses me off. Even installing Debian's branded Iceweasel doesn't improve performance. But I install Firefox manual. And add in the headaches with Flash and the internet experience with Debian Squeeze is abysmal.
3. ATI and hardware acceleration. Non existant in Debian. Even down to running my favorite screensaver, the GL Solar Winds is piss poor. In (K)Ubuntu the ATI drivers (radeon) and GL work correctly.
Those were just the deal breakers. There are a dozen other headaches that irked me with Squeeze. So I gave Kubuntu 9.10 another try and this time I got a good install and it runs fine. Graphics performance, internet performance (including flash). Now I'm not totally crazy about sudo. I am old school and prefer a full root login. But I'll manage. And the whole switch over to UUID's for hd's (which is the same for debian) really is a pain. So much so I switched all my fstab listings back to the /dev/sd# listings they originally were. But for now the system is workable again. Of course i'm going to have to learn grub now as I've been a staunch Lilo user (again old school). And when Squeeze finally goes stable I may look at it again, but until the Debian developers get some major kinks outta the system I'll stay with Kubuntu. If it means I never go back, so be it. But I'm past my "tinker with everything under the hood" days. Now I just want it to work, like it did in Lenny. Probably the Best distro ever put out.

Oh and I even tried to go back to my old sweetheart Mandriva. They haven't had anything I've liked since Mandrake 10, Maybe Mandriva 2006.

Which distro?
 

It all depends on what you're looking for in a distribution. If you really want to learn about how Linux really works (a "get your hands dirty" approach), I'd recommend Slackwware. It's a lot like being a pioneer in that there's so much you have to configure manually. You get comfortable quickly with using the shell and text editors. Some software, such as OpenOffice, requires manual installation and some tweaking to get it to work right. I used Slackware for about four years. A few months ago, a friend got me to try Ubuntu, which is something I had shunned as "a newbie's distro." I actually enjoyed it, especially the part where the system is ready to use on first boot. No need to edit configuration files to get the system perform as you wish. I'm not saying that it's issue-free, but neither is the competition. I'll probably stick with it for a while.

Yes *buntu sucks.

Almost 40 years of careful evoluted Unix policies are being violated.

The no su / sudo thing first. I get pissed off everytime if I need to do something on a Ubuntu machine and have to remember WHO installed the crap in order to enter HIS password to perform admin tasks.

The hide everything which is more complicated than a bordered window is a good second candidate. I use to do things command line, but those simply do not work in Ubuntu like configuring the network card.

There are many more issues, but in general, Unbuntu has depreciated system administration to the Windows way: reboot for small problems, reinstall for larger problems. Great for Windows users that is, make them feel at home.

Coming back to the OP question if there is that much difference between distro's: yes, I think so. I feel quite lefthanded on a FC or Suse system. Both are well-established, high quality distro's. I think both use yum for package management, but I haven't the faintest idea how it works. However, many distro's can be grouped together with only a few of the main distro's and are similar in setup and package management.

I am hardcore Debian user, and package management is fabulous. However, Debian also chooses to do things the Debian way, like runlevel functions and kernel compilation. They went a long way to create really good tools, without hiding much of the bare metal stuff, fortunately.

jlinkels

I have to take it back. Kubuntu did not fit the bill. First Grub was giving me problems. So I had to dig to find out how to install lilo after install. Man what a pain. And then it turns out that my HP Officejet G85 was configured but would not print. Nothing I did would make a difference. The toolbox would show it configured but no print jobs made it to the printer. I got error messages that it might not be connected. Deal breaker. And I never did like sudo. So I went back and reinstalled Debian Lenny. Took me an hour and a half to get the whole thing installed and then another hour to make it pretty.

I did a test today on a backup computer and Debian Squeeze has come along alittle more. But there are some major issues. I install with the Dec 20 netinst cd. It installs the 2.6.30 kernel and then after also installs the 2.6.37 kernel. The 2.6.37 kernel is flaky. So I boot into the 2.6.30 kernel and it is better. I'm going to give it another week and then give it a test install on the main box on a backup hard drive. If it works oK I'll reinstall it regular.

But back to the OP. Yes Kubuntu DOES SUCK! I won't even consider going to it again.