LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Ubuntu (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/)
-   -   wtf ubuntu: i wish i didnt have to use you (rave) (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/wtf-ubuntu-i-wish-i-didnt-have-to-use-you-rave-564487/)

pengu 06-25-2007 10:55 PM

wtf ubuntu: i wish i didnt have to use you (rave)
 
ok yes sorry this is a little pointless. but does anyone else feel like i do?

honesty i wish i didnt have to use ubuntu. its gnome based, and it doesnt have most of the features i look for in a distro. also, as of the last release, suspend doesnt work.

the problem is, its still the most stable and relyable disto out there.

ive had trouble with kubuntu, and almost all other kde based distros are rpm based. (no i will not use mepis)

I just hate the way ubuntu is going. its so close to being a truly compleate disto, however, i seems to be heading in compleatly the wrong direction.

Personaly, i feel gnome is going nowhere compared to kde (kde 4) and even enlightenment seems to be making a ton of progress. i fear that when kde 4 comes out, kubuntu will do a poor job of including it. And besides, kubuntu only gets about half of the new features ubuntu gets, and recieves far less attention/testing.

(more rant)
i dont belive ubuntu doesnt have a -control panel- it is SO important. even when they tried to add a simple panel for all the dozens of menu entries to go, people complained and for some reason they got their way. Ubuntu needs a control center like suse or pclinuxos or mandriva. (note all the commercial distros have control centers)

Honestly i love linux, and will still get by with ubuntu over windows. but i really feel like nobody can get it right and just when someone gets sooo close, they get a few MAJOR parts wrong

BTW i think the future is with either kde or enlightenment. but there are no distros that do a good enough job of including them

pixellany 06-25-2007 11:52 PM

Could you please repeat your question?

I have tried maybe 30 distros in the past two years and now have 2 favorites: Mepis6.5 and Kubuntu, in that order. OpenSUSE 10.2 would be a very close 3rd, but I still favor the apt/Synaptic package management. From my point of view, I don't find your rant to be very credible....Sorry.

thloh85 06-26-2007 12:26 AM

Quote:

From my point of view, I don't find your rant to be very credible....Sorry.
Same here...
I don't really use ubuntu as I'm a developer and wants everything from scratch... LFS is my choice... But ubuntu is not bad for end users IMHO
:)

Simon Bridge 06-26-2007 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
ok yes sorry this is a little pointless. but does anyone else feel like i do?

You are in the minority... Ubuntu is quite well liked... even by people who prefer other distros.
Quote:

honesty i wish i didnt have to use ubuntu. its gnome based, and it doesnt have most of the features i look for in a distro. also, as of the last release, suspend doesnt work.
Works for me. But suspend seems to be spotty regardless of the distro. Anyway, the trouble is usually apparent when you recover from suspend. And is this suspend-to-disk or suspend-to-ram?

Have you created threads for your issues?
Quote:

the problem is, its still the most stable and reliable distro out there.
That will get hotly disputed... I understand that Debian Stable fits the bill better.
Quote:

I've had trouble with kubuntu, and almost all other kde based distros are rpm based. (no i will not use mepis)
...OK, but why not? I know this is supposed to be a rant, but detail helps... especially with the credibility factor.

Each time you make a statement like this, without backing it up, you lose points. OTOH: if you make a case, people will listen to you. You are in a good position here too... there are Ubuntu (and Mepis) developers reading this ;)
Quote:

I just hate the way ubuntu is going. its so close to being a truly compleate disto, however, i seems to be heading in compleatly the wrong direction.
You hate that it is close to being "complete" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but what is the "right" direction?
Quote:

Personaly, i feel gnome is going nowhere compared to kde (kde 4) and even enlightenment seems to be making a ton of progress. i fear that when kde 4 comes out, kubuntu will do a poor job of including it. And besides, kubuntu only gets about half of the new features ubuntu gets, and recieves far less attention/testing.
Give examples... name two "new features" Ubuntu Feisty got that Kubuntu Feisty didn't?

BTW: have you tried installing the KDE desktop to Ubuntu? (So far you seem to want Ubuntu, but with KDE.)
Quote:

i dont belive ubuntu doesnt have a -control panel- it is SO important. even when they tried to add a simple panel for all the dozens of menu entries to go, people complained and for some reason they got their way. Ubuntu needs a control center like suse or pclinuxos or mandriva. (note all the commercial distros have control centers)
As canonical keeps pointing out, Ubuntu is a commercial distro. How do we get to the control panel in SUSE-Gnome?
Quote:

Honestly i love linux, and will still get by with ubuntu over windows. but i really feel like nobody can get it right and just when someone gets sooo close, they get a few MAJOR parts wrong

BTW i think the future is with either kde or enlightenment. but there are no distros that do a good enough job of including them
... Have you seen Yellowdog Linux?

Anyway, I suspect you are just going to have to accept that nobody is going to make your idea of the perfect distro (except, of course, you.) There will always be one that is annoyingly close. It will always seem to spiral off the one true path. Live with it.

Interestingly, if I feed the above rant details into a distro chooser, it suggests SUSE for you, followed by Debian!

It strikes me that you are most likely to get the desktop experience you crave with one of the more hard-core distros like this (or Slackware, or Gentoo)... you can get the exact mix of features you want this way.

You will find the first one will be a bit of a pita compared with ubuntu... but after that it will be easy.

pengu 06-26-2007 10:50 PM

ok some clarification

i wont use an rpm distro. they lack the central reposatory that is so nice in debian (and debian derived distros) which is one of the main reasons i am using linux. Rpm distros in my opinion also tend to be more bloated, and slow.

About kubuntu not haveing the same features as ubuntu, sorry it was late, thats not really what i meant. I meant that all the other "official" ubuntu variants (kubuntu, xubuntu, edubutu) are not kept up to as nearly a high standard as ubuntu is. For example, xubuntu lacked an easy way to connect to wireless networks. Also i noticed Kubuntu has a quite highly customized control panel, but when it comes to ubuntu a control panel is denied. Edubutu is actually quite good, but thats because it just has added packages+theams mainly.

Ubuntu's direction. An Operating system should try to include all the programs a person will generally use. Now i know ubuntu's "keep it simple" motto, and "one app for each perpose" and i like it. But that about file backup? virus scanning? (yes there are viruses for linux!) firewall customizeation? even disk partitioning? (which is included in the installer but not the installed version). For example, Windows XP and Mac OSX both include graphical programs to do almost everything needed to maintaine a system. On ubuntu, i find i have to add another dozen programs to equal this functionality. And this is fine for me, but what about others? they arnt going to know that functionality like this can be added through Add/Remove Programs. Why you ask? becase based on what they know, these kind of this are "built into the os". So their first reaction will be something like "linux doesnt have a firewall?" or "linux cant back up my files?". Now almost all of this functionality is avalible through add/remove programs and often integrates perfectly into the os. Why isnt this included? because it wont all fit on a cd rom. Another bad point about ubuntu. They keep it all on one cd, which is fine. Until you start loosing features included in other os's because they wont use a dvd.

Also, for some reason, Ubuntu insists of releasing every 6 months. Why? If they moved it to a main release every year and a bug fix/minor releases every 6 months they could get so much more done. They cannot make many drastic changes because they dont have the time. Also, how do you expect people with the new "ubuntu cirtified training" to keep up in an enterprise enviroment. Should everyone be re-trained every six months? This alown would make Ubuntu more expensive to run then Windows. You know many big buisness still use Windows 2000? I know Ubuntu is trying to deal with this with LTS releases but is that certian yet? When is every LTS release? every 2 years? Or every third release?

Honestly I think im going to start my own ubuntu derived distro. (yes i know BAD right?) Im just so fed up with distros being so cloase to getting it just right. Especialy one like ubuntu, which has so much power.

Btw, isnt Yellowdog and ppc/ps3 distro? i know they used to have i386 versions but they dropped that long ago right?

bburgy 06-27-2007 11:35 PM

Actually, kubuntu, edubuntu, and ubuntu are all part of the same resource: ubuntu. So, if you download kubuntu, you're getting ubuntu without gnome packages, and with kde packages. If you find something that you want in your kubuntu installation that doesn't come as default (and is included by default in ubuntu), just apt-get install it.

pixellany 06-28-2007 12:02 AM

Quote:

Ubuntu's direction. An Operating system should try to include all the programs a person will generally use.
I totally disagree. Who is going to decide this? Include everything that the majority will need to START.

Quote:

Another bad point about ubuntu. They keep it all on one cd, which is fine. Until you start loosing features included in other os's because they wont use a dvd.
This is the best way to do it!!! Minimal install quickly, then download whatever else you need. You are not losing anything.....

If you have the skills to write code, then I would rather see you work on existing issues that cut across the whole community---why strive to become #325 on the Distrowatch ranking?

pengu 06-28-2007 02:18 AM

as I explained, the average user switching from windows or OSX is not going to know how, or even that they can add these things. And who says they are going to have internet? Installing programs withough internet on linux is a pain anyway, and there is no "supported" way to do this.

My point is that even though ubuntu is "the most user friendly" distro i still cant reccomend it to the average user.

and pixellany, i would contribute to ubuntu, execpt that contuarary to the "open sorce" and "humanity" image ubuntu projects i found it quite difficult to contribute, and found the developer/contributer community quite closed minded. I dont care if my distro is even on distrowatch, in fact it most likely wont tecknically be a distro... I just want to be able to hand someone a disk, and know that using it wont compleatly discourage them from using linux.

Wim Sturkenboom 06-28-2007 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Rpm distros in my opinion also tend to be more bloated, and slow.

Yep, but they offer nearly everything. You have the choice to install either KDE or GNOME or both. You can also choose to use them as server or as desktop (all packages included). They have some build-in firewall tool (if I remember correctly from RH8). etc etc etc

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Ubuntu's direction. An Operating system should try to include all the programs a person will generally use. Now i know ubuntu's "keep it simple" motto, and "one app for each perpose" and i like it. But that about file backup? virus scanning? (yes there are viruses for linux!) firewall customizeation? even disk partitioning? (which is included in the installer but not the installed version). For example, Windows XP and Mac OSX both include graphical programs to do almost everything needed to maintaine a system. On ubuntu, i find i have to add another dozen programs to equal this functionality. And this is fine for me, but what about others? they arnt going to know that functionality like this can be added through Add/Remove Programs. Why you ask? becase based on what they know, these kind of this are "built into the os". So their first reaction will be something like "linux doesnt have a firewall?" or "linux cant back up my files?". Now almost all of this functionality is avalible through add/remove programs and often integrates perfectly into the os.

Assuming that you're talking about a distro and not and OS you have a point. Windows XP does not include an office suite so you can't create documents, spreadsheets etc :)
Personally I have never used Windows' backup programs (did not even know that it is included). I'm sure that 90% of the Windows users don't even use it; look on any forum (windows, linux) and see the posts where people lost so-called valuable data due to crash or people who want to switch to Linux and start with "I don't want to loose any data".
Windows XP also does not come with a virus scanner (as far as I know).
If you're talking about an OS, virus scanners and office suites and so on are not part of an OS, so MS is correct from that perspective. Neither does a GUI belong in there (but that's my humble opionion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Why isnt this included? because it wont all fit on a cd rom. Another bad point about ubuntu. They keep it all on one cd, which is fine. Until you start loosing features included in other os's because they wont use a dvd.

You might be a lucky person who has a very fast connection to the internet without usage limitations, but a lot of people don't (I used to have 500MB usage, now increased by the ISP to 1GB for the same price). With that 1GB I can download the CD but not the DVD. So I use the CD and next month I can add one or more applications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Also, for some reason, Ubuntu insists of releasing every 6 months. Why? If they moved it to a main release every year and a bug fix/minor releases every 6 months they could get so much more done. They cannot make many drastic changes because they dont have the time. Also, how do you expect people with the new "ubuntu cirtified training" to keep up in an enterprise enviroment. Should everyone be re-trained every six months? This alown would make Ubuntu more expensive to run then Windows. You know many big buisness still use Windows 2000? I know Ubuntu is trying to deal with this with LTS releases but is that certian yet? When is every LTS release? every 2 years? Or every third release?

I agree. Most distro's have a release cycle that's to fast. I prefer a release cycle of 5 years (something like MS); it's the reason I use the LTS version. But don't forget that lots of people want the latest of the latest.
I think enterprises will go for LTS versions. Who cares about 3D effects etc in an enterprise? Further. in my opinion, most releases are 'minor' improvements anyway. From there I don't see the need for re-training.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Honestly I think im going to start my own ubuntu derived distro. (yes i know BAD right?)

Please base it on LTS versions and I might be your man for testing.
On the other hand, just create a CD with all possible add-ons and you're there as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
Im just so fed up with distros being so cloase to getting it just right.

Why do you think that are that many distro's? Your own distro will suite your needs, but probably not mine.


PS my list of required SW if you decide to start your own distro and you want me to ever use your distro instead of the ones that I use now:
Gnome and a light weight alternative
development tools like Tcl/Tk, C compiler, GTK
codecs
Apache, MySql and PHP
OpenOffice and evolution as well as leight weight alternatives
drivers for my nvidia card (not NV)
image and video editing software

IndyGunFreak 06-28-2007 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
ok yes sorry this is a little pointless. but does anyone else feel like i do?

honesty i wish i didnt have to use ubuntu. its gnome based, and it doesnt have most of the features i look for in a distro. also, as of the last release, suspend doesnt work.

the problem is, its still the most stable and relyable disto out there.

ive had trouble with kubuntu, and almost all other kde based distros are rpm based. (no i will not use mepis)

I just hate the way ubuntu is going. its so close to being a truly compleate disto, however, i seems to be heading in compleatly the wrong direction.

Personaly, i feel gnome is going nowhere compared to kde (kde 4) and even enlightenment seems to be making a ton of progress. i fear that when kde 4 comes out, kubuntu will do a poor job of including it. And besides, kubuntu only gets about half of the new features ubuntu gets, and recieves far less attention/testing.

(more rant)
i dont belive ubuntu doesnt have a -control panel- it is SO important. even when they tried to add a simple panel for all the dozens of menu entries to go, people complained and for some reason they got their way. Ubuntu needs a control center like suse or pclinuxos or mandriva. (note all the commercial distros have control centers)

Honestly i love linux, and will still get by with ubuntu over windows. but i really feel like nobody can get it right and just when someone gets sooo close, they get a few MAJOR parts wrong

BTW i think the future is with either kde or enlightenment. but there are no distros that do a good enough job of including them

I came away with one thought after all that..

wahhh..

If you dont like it, use something else. I personally really like Ubuntu, as do a majority of the folks out there. Like it or not, it might be Ubuntu that finally breaks the Windows curse with OEM PC's. Ubuntu is a little slower than Debian, but more user friendly.

So what frustration free distro do you suggest to newbies? Gentoo? Slack? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should try LFS.

IGF

deepclutch 06-28-2007 11:04 AM

Yes.Debian i feel is really more stable than Ubuntu(no flameS!!)
and GNOME is better for me.I like the simple and userfriendly gui of GNOME.Yes,GNOME went too simpler following their Human Interface Guidelines(HIG) with versions of GNOME-2.8 to GNOME-2.12.I sincerely feels with GNOME reaching 2.18,it's still a BIG competitor for DE market alongwith KDE.
Hopes GNOME-3.0 development to begin rewriting those HIG to make it an agenda like kde to attract Windows users to GNU/Linux and GNOME.

But i can understand that most people cannot think or use anything other than kde(4) and oh,yes its ur choice.still kde is windows`ish is-my idea.and qt is something which i feel will not go with a gtk2 only distro(ubuntu).so they(cannonical) made kubuntu for kde nirvana.so at the end,most are happy with their GNOME or Kde and some are in forums flaming(bashing) other DE's. :) yeah,i know some wants to make Ubuntu defaults to kde and kubuntu dissolved to get Gubuntu for GNOME.so nice :lol:

silverbullet 06-28-2007 06:32 PM

Just install kde on ubuntu. Problem solved.

Simon Bridge 06-29-2007 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pengu
ok some clarification

i wont use an rpm distro. they lack the central reposatory that is so nice in debian (and debian derived distros) which is one of the main reasons i am using linux. Rpm distros in my opinion also tend to be more bloated, and slow.

That depends on the distro and how it is installed (see PCLinuxOS - rpm-based and fits on one CD). The lack of a central repo like deb based distros has been noticed... but the number of (say) ubuntu repos in the default sources.list is larger that the number in fedora. And you need to add more to get "full functionality".
Quote:

About kubuntu not haveing the same features as ubuntu, sorry it was late, thats not really what i meant. I meant that all the other "official" ubuntu variants (kubuntu, xubuntu, edubutu) are not kept up to as nearly a high standard as ubuntu is. For example, xubuntu lacked an easy way to connect to wireless networks. Also i noticed Kubuntu has a quite highly customized control panel, but when it comes to ubuntu a control panel is denied. Edubutu is actually quite good, but thats because it just has added packages+theams mainly.
The control panel ooks to me too much like a different presentation of functionality that currently exists in the cascading menu. Though I am a little surprised that this doesn't seem to exist as a plugin...
Quote:

Ubuntu's direction. An Operating system should try to include all the programs a person will generally use.
... and yet you want to avoid the bloat you mention in connection with rpm distros... it seems that what you really want is for a distro to include only those programs that you use.
Quote:

Now i know ubuntu's "keep it simple" motto, and "one app for each perpose" and i like it. But that about file backup? virus scanning? (yes there are viruses for linux!) firewall customizeation? even disk partitioning? (which is included in the installer but not the installed version).
Ubuntu is not the only one with the KISS philosophy, see Zenwalk... what people mean by "simple" tends to vary.

File backup is provided by tar.

The partition manipulator is parted (yes - in the default install!)

Firewall is provided by iptables. There are plenty of googleable scripts available much faster than providing a gui.

AV is provided by clamAV but requires a download. However, you should name three linux viruses currently active to even begin to support your claim for the need. (Symantec, for eg, have no linux viruses above category 2.) We normally run AV software to protect other peoples computers from windows viruses.

The software exists in all but one case. What you mean is, you want a GUI for these things.

Quote:

For example, Windows XP and Mac OSX both include graphical programs to do almost everything needed to maintaine a system.
No they don't. They do net include a virus scanner nor a disc partitioning tool. You need winzip for eqivalent file backup functionality and the builtin firewall is worse than no firewall at all (by providing the illusion of protection where none exists.)

Quote:

On ubuntu, i find i have to add another dozen programs to equal this functionality. And this is fine for me, but what about others? they arnt going to know that functionality like this can be added through Add/Remove Programs. Why you ask? becase based on what they know, these kind of this are "built into the os".
This is not correct. Windows users think nothing of paying hundreds of dollars for additional programs to provide the functionality that Ubuntu provides out of the box and for free.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...02#post2775502

Alternatively, they pay a vendor to pre-install the functionality they want.

Failing that, they hunt for gratis software online... and all the "functionality" in the "add/remove programs" is duplicated and improved upon by third parties.
Quote:

So their first reaction will be something like "linux doesnt have a firewall?" or "linux cant back up my files?".
They, then, go online looking for answers, and find them very quickly. Firefox includes bookmarks to help. A quick search of these forums tells you what sort of questions people ask.
Quote:

Now almost all of this functionality is avalible through add/remove programs and often integrates perfectly into the os. Why isnt this included? because it wont all fit on a cd rom. Another bad point about ubuntu. They keep it all on one cd, which is fine. Until you start loosing features included in other os's because they wont use a dvd.
But Ubuntu does come on DVD if you want: http://nginyang.uvt.nl/

Quote:

Also, for some reason, Ubuntu insists of releasing every 6 months. Why?
because this approach has been demonstrated to create better code faster. It doesn't mean you have to upgrade that frequently any more than the arrival of Vista means that you have to stop using XP (or Win2k or Win98 or...).

Quote:

If they moved it to a main release every year and a bug fix/minor releases every 6 months they could get so much more done.
Actually, there are bugfixes every week. And you don't keep to the release cycle, you keep to the support cycle. Think: a new install of XP today will require also an install of two service packs and hours worth of downloaded updates. This is the penalty of the long release cycle. Though, the long-time users got all those incrementally, new installs are a lot of work.

With Ubuntu, you need only upgrade to every third release (18 month upgrade/support cycle) ut new installations can include updated security and bug fixes on one CD. Reducing downtime.

Then there are LTS releases.

Quote:

They cannot make many drastic changes because they dont have the time.
1. You don't want "drastic" changes. This could break mission critical apps.
2. Each major release has, in fact, seen significant changes... usually focussing on one area of development at a time.
3. Vista took 5 years and still didn't produce any drastic changes. Hence, cycle-length does not correlate to ability to make changes.

Quote:

Also, how do you expect people with the new "ubuntu cirtified training" to keep up in an enterprise enviroment. Should everyone be re-trained every six months?
Of course not... this is another reason not to make "drastic" changes. Anyway, it would be redundant... a major release does not mean "retraining"... why should it?

If you have been Ubuntu Certified, then you have demonstrated the skills needed to keep up anyway.

Quote:

You know many big buisness still use Windows 2000?
Few businesses used Win2k at all... they started out with NT4 around that time as the business solution MS was pushing.

But a very large number are still using Win2k server!
When NT4 support folded, everyone moved to WinXP on the enterprise/business desktop. (Win2k was considered too unstable.)

What was your point again?

Quote:

I know Ubuntu is trying to deal with this with LTS releases but is that certian yet?
Yes.
Quote:

When is every LTS release? every 2 years? Or every third release?
The support cycle is 5 years on the server and 3 years on the desktop.

Remember, the support cycle is what's important for existing installations. While there are more frequent "maintenance" releases there is, as yet, no fixed release cycle.

If 6.06 stops being used, don't expect another LTS release (no demand would suggest that sysadmins are happy to use main-sequence upgrades). However, all other things equal, expect the next LTS release 2-3 years after the previous one. (Some have suggested 4 years as more likely, but that dosn't square well with the 3-year desktop support.)

Quote:

Honestly I think im going to start my own ubuntu derived distro. (yes i know BAD right?) Im just so fed up with distros being so cloase to getting it just right. Especialy one like ubuntu, which has so much power.
Probably all you need is to remaster the existing Ubuntu CD/DVD ... or, make your own DVD with those packages you find you are constantly downloading.

However, this will actually involve more work than what you are doing right now!
Quote:

Btw, isnt Yellowdog and ppc/ps3 distro? i know they used to have i386 versions but they dropped that long ago right?
yep. However, the PS3 version uses DR17 a the native desktop.

There is also Elbuntu ...

Quote:

as I explained, the average user switching from windows or OSX is not going to know how, or even that they can add these things.
That is no different from their position using Windows or OSX
Quote:

And who says they are going to have internet?
That is why there are bloated distros. Though I note that Windows Vista requires internet access for WGA.
Quote:

Installing programs withough internet on linux is a pain anyway, and there is no "supported" way to do this.
Of course their are supported ways to install software through the internet... have you not just been talking about the "add/remove software" item in the applications menu in gnome? What is aptitude and synaptic... rpm, yum?

I should point out that the users you seem to be talking about, if they even exist, should be using Linspire or Xandros and not Ubuntu. They, also, are not you.

Quote:

My point is that even though ubuntu is "the most user friendly" distro i still cant reccomend it to the average user.
The "average user" you describe doesn't exist. I, however, assist novice users with Ubuntu every day. It takes them about 5 mins to get over the initial learning hump and start enjoying themselves.
Quote:

and pixellany, i would contribute to ubuntu, execpt that contuarary to the "open sorce" and "humanity" image ubuntu projects i found it quite difficult to contribute, and found the developer/contributer community quite closed minded.
Judging by the previous rant, I can see why.

deepclutch 06-30-2007 03:23 AM

Another point is Viruses for Linux with increasing popularity is a growing FUD from AV companies esp kaspersky.I hope new linux users reads below article
Note to New Linux users:No Antivirus needed.
http://www.linux.com/articles/60208
The Frustration of AV companies can be understood as they lost another platform apart from windows to push their AV products.
AVs are used in Linux in servers,e-mail servers esp for protecting windows customers :p
reg viruses for linux:
http://linuxmafia.com/%7Erick/faq/in...ge=virus#virus
I suggest below link for those who expects GNU/Linux to be next "windows"
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
http://www.getgnulinux.org/switch_to...dows_to_linux/

b0uncer 06-30-2007 03:47 AM

Here's the magic: if and when you're not satisfied with an operating system, you can use some other ;)

I find no major problems about Ubuntu. Why a control panel? Because you can't open separate menu entries, or because you're unable to use the real programs? Read some documentation about common Unix principles, used in Linux too, and you should get why it's often better not to have a big thing like a common control center, but smaller ones (separate control tools) instead. Oh, and almost forgot to mention: if you really want a control center, you can build one of your own, as you can build anything you think the distribution lacks - that's why it's open source.

You could get a bare Ubuntu base system, then download the official KDE packages and install them on it just the way you like. Ubuntu is an offer, not a must. The same goes for every distribution out there.

Gnome and KDE have some ideological differences, in addition to their outfit and libraries. KDE suits for those it suits, Gnome for those Gnome suits. Neither is perfect. KDE is older, but in my opinion Gnome is more "user-friendly" out of the package. I know KDE-lovers now tell me "you can configure KDE just the way you like", but even then it's a hell lot of work. One of you could configure me a KDE that's one to one Gnome equivalent - I don't think it's going to be done in a day. If you're not satisfied with Gnome, don't use it - if KDE is not for you, don't use it - if you find one that you like, use that instead. God, nobody ever forced you to use the default desktop against your will.. And if KDE is releasing version 4 (which isn't as of now, if I understood it right, not going to be an explosion to the upper levels of heaven, it's more inside work than outside work, so it won't differ from KDE3 that much for the end-user), it doesn't mean Gnome should right away release version 4 too. Gnome 3.0 is in plans, but I hope they don't release it just because they want big numbers; KDE has had some rush releases that haven't worked correctly, like Gnome too, and hopefully they've learnt, like others, that a release should not be made until it's ready.

Think before you speak, fix before you weep. You've got your hands, you've got the tools so apparently it's only your will that's missing: if you complain, you should be able to make things better. If you're unable to make things better, don't complain too much. Just tell what's wrong and hope somebody has the time to fix it for you, so you could go on weeping about another matter of no importance.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.