2007 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2007 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2007. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends February 21st.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Desktop Distribution of the Year
While I never tried Ubuntu (IMHO an icky Debian hack job from looking at the code) nor SUSE (IMHO only suitable for really fast machines), I have to disagree with your statement about Debian not being a distro.
By your definition RedHat and Slackware aren't distros either.
While there wasn't a clear idea of what a Linux distro was in 1993 when Debian was born, it was precisely this desire that led Ian and Debra Murdoch to create Debian. Before the corporate money-making machine found a market for it and before the press could spin it out of whack, Debian laid down a cohesive framework for a truly free and open operating system.
Debian is much more than a simple distro, which you may have been vaguely alluding to. It is an entire non-commercial community, creating freely, without any financial incentive whatsoever. One needn't wonder why they aren't in the news a lot or listed in the "server market" watches. They aren't "news" and they don't have a "market" precisely because they don't play the peanut and shell games. They aren't jockeying for a position on some chart or better "market share" to gain more ad revenue or service contracts. But they most certainly ARE a GNU/Linux distro , and the second oldest still in existence I might add.
--bob
This is a silent revolution, with no need for whistles and bells because it's just plain common sense and common knowledge combined.
I do like a few of the desktops and am sorely tempted to choose other than Ubuntu which is my choice for this voting. as lumpy as it is, I find it stable and well supported. The user community is phenomenal. I do not like Kubuntu and the other ?Buntus with the exception being geubuntu.
Although I prefer for example Mint, I view it as a "customized" Ubuntu. Mandriva only impressed me with its 2008 version and that is so recent I am bypassing voting for it unfortunately. I have business and personal requirements that have influenced me in my voting so I limited myself to large distributons whose longevity I can reasonably count on
Its just as good as Ubuntu but it comes with those media codecs Ubuntu avoids and it has many of the things Ive always complained about Ubuntu not having(eg. Control Panel, Menu, and a better desktop look).
(...)Many users just got tired of going thru all kinds of tap dances just to play movies that (1) we bought, (2) that played correctly in Windows without any problems.(...)
So, are you saying that you can play movies in Windows without installing codecs packs, such as k-lite or something else? I highly doubt that. Out of the box, Windows has probably one of the worst support for media ever.
And about going through "all the tap dances", you probably never heard of Ubuntu Guide either, have you? I got my media installed using the guide and three commands. Most distros don't include codecs for legal reasons. Ubuntu (and most distros out there) are just avoiding legal issues that might arise when shipping with codecs.
Ubuntu rocks. People who say Ubuntu is over-hyped and that Shuttleworth is evil are not getting the reality.
Linux is continued by Linus only because he gets money from shares of Red Hat which Rad Hat gave him out of gratitude. Red Hat is a corporate nonetheless.
Shuttleworth and Canonical must make money to sustain such a great distro. Tell me frankly which other distribution helped in Linux reaching the broadband-ridden developing nations? Ubuntu did that with shipit.
Ubuntu is the best distro. Fedora's new codec buddy is funny outside US and few other nations (no software patents here). I have to teach new users what a repository is. I have to tell them that they need to get an RPM from livna.org and install, which updates repository list. Then install so and so codecs. When I do this they give me a weird look and say Linux is difficult to use for normal users.
On Ubuntu they try to play, it says codecs are missing, do u wanna download. They say yes and in minutes, their song plays gracefully. They are happy and say hey Linux is damn simple.
I voted for slackware last year because i thought was too new to dethrone the current king(slackware). but 12 was a major dissapointment to me.so my choice this year is arch.
Ubuntu rocks. People who say Ubuntu is over-hyped and that Shuttleworth is evil are not getting the reality.
I think ubuntu is GOOD but is not the BEST distro. I'm aware it is also a matter of taste and ideology (e.g. "I don't like Shuttleworth's policy"). My point was on stability, which to my experience is not the strong point of ubuntu.
Accepted. I do like Slackware a lot. Again Ubuntu is not the best for everyone. But calling shuttleworth evil is plain baseless. Ubuntu is the distribution which brought Linux to masses. I do like Fedora, Slackware, Mepis, etc. But that doesn't mean Ubuntu is bad or Shuttleworth is evil. If u want to call a Linux distributor evil, only Novell comes to my mind due to their pushing of MS technologies into Linux ecosystem, making it easy for Ballmer to continue with his patent claims.
I voted for slackware last year because i thought was too new to dethrone the current king(slackware). but 12 was a major dissapointment to me.so my choice this year is arch.
I have to teach new users what a repository is. I have to tell them that they need to get an RPM from livna.org and install, which updates repository list. Then install so and so codecs. When I do this they give me a weird look and say Linux is difficult to use for normal users.
RPMs have some issues (Most of which could be solved by having the dependencies installed in the same RPM as the Program that is installing, if necessary) however they are defiantly better then Windows install methods. Also you support Ubuntu by criticizing RPMs? From my research Debs are very similar so what are you supporting? Window's F***ed up registry? Also it is a common myth that RPMs are only are accessible from repositorys they can be used out side of them. Let them give you a weird look, they need to learn to use a computer PROPERLY! It is bad to the end users to teach them to use wrecked technology just because they find it easier to comprehend in their little minds.
Accepted. I do like Slackware a lot. Again Ubuntu is not the best for everyone. But calling shuttleworth evil is plain baseless. Ubuntu is the distribution which brought Linux to masses. I do like Fedora, Slackware, Mepis, etc. But that doesn't mean Ubuntu is bad or Shuttleworth is evil. If u want to call a Linux distributor evil, only Novell comes to my mind due to their pushing of MS technologies into Linux ecosystem, making it easy for Ballmer to continue with his patent claims.
How is Ballmer evil and Shuttleworth not, they both command corporate empires, they both have big wallets?
How is Ballmer evil and Shuttleworth not, they both command corporate empires, they both have big wallets?
1) Give one example of an "evil" action by Shuttleworth.
2) As regards your earlier wild claims about Shuttleworth's residency in the Isle of Man, he is a South African citizen and made his fortune mostly in the RSA, with Thawte Consulting and its sale to Versign. I suppose if you are paranoid his sale of Thawte to Verisign might be considered evil. If he really is resident in the Isle of Man, he is under no obligation, moral or legal, to pay any taxes in the United Kingdom.
Last edited by Eternal_Newbie; 01-13-2008 at 04:51 PM.
Shuttleworth is helping developing nations. Ballmer does not. All that Ballmer gives is either a starter edition (which sucks at networking) or a $3 package which is equally stripped down.
On the other hand Shuttleworth sends free CDs to every corner of the world which can be reached by post. He gives a full-fledged OS free.
I love Fedora and Red Hat but saying Fedora is non-corporate but Ubuntu is corporate is funny. Fedora acts as a test bed for RHEL. Any feedback given for Fedora, Red Hat uses to make money from RHEL and RHEL is not free. But Ubuntu gives enterprise class (LTS) releases free too. I don't see Ubuntu being more corporate than Fedora.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
