Published at LXer:

I was getting set to download and test the latest Ubuntu release (right now in beta), and decided it might be wise to skim the release notes to see what’s new.Under “new features,” I spied this: “Beta-1 includes the 3.2.0-17.27 Ubuntu kernel which is based on the v3.2.6 upstream stable kernel.” The Ubuntu kernel? Give me a break, guys.Lest you wonder whether this was an intentional naming decision, it does seem to be that Canonical is deliberately avoiding using the L word. The release notes were imported by Canonical’s Kate Stewart (release manager) with the “Ubuntu kernel” language.

Read More...

I'm configuring a new Ubuntu install as I type and I have to say, to me at least, it's not Linux any more. Of course it uses the work of many good people wjo contribute to GNU/Linux and it is based on Debian, but the way it works is different to any other Linux install I've done, including Ubuntu/Kubuntu from a couple of years ago.

This is only a logical step. They don't want to be a part of the Linux ecosystem (except for the part where they get software to release for free), they want to be a major player in the OS market for desktop PCs and mobile devices. When the times come when they actually have to make some money they don't get it from Linux users, they will get it from Ubuntu users.
In my eyes, and I have posted this already in previous threads, are they currently harmful for the Linux ecosystem, despite the fact that they don't want to be a Linux distribution.

I'm not sure whether they're harmful or not, they do get people using Linux even if they don't call it Linux so perhaps it will be a good thing. If the home desktop market is 1/3 Windows 1/3 Apple and 1/3 Ubuntu then at least some games ought to be released on all three, for example.

They never will get 1/3 of the market, I would think. They develop more and more the same behavior than Microsoft: vendor-lock-in, bugs don't get fixed for several releases, even if it are serious bugs, the main goal is a shiny OS with "new" features, not a stable system.
Nonetheless most people are recommending Ubuntu for anyone who wants to give Linux a try. So that is people's first look at Linux, a shiny but buggy system, common hardware does not work and the programs people are used to (mainly Office and games) are not working out of the box. When I think about it, may be it is a good thing that they try not to be a Linux distro, may be some people will think "Ubuntu is crap!" instead of "Linux is crap!" when they see that.

But despite the harmful thing, I think it is just disrespectful. Ubuntu, like Debian, has more than 30000 packages in their repositories. Only a handful are packages developed by Canonical. They are releasing a product 99% developed by others. It is just a sign of respect towards those developers to mention the hard work of those people and may be contributing something back.

After reading the comments on the article I'm not sure that there is deliberate disrespect for Linux -- I do think it's more that the people who don't know Ubuntu is Linux won't care anyhow even if it were mentioned everywhere.
I agree about Ubuntu being buggy but I think more stable distros suffer from not being installed by professionals -- pre-installed OSs are the only ones the average consumer will use and trying to tell "my dear old mum" how to install Debian isn't going to happen despite it being easier to install than Windows (in my experience).
I actually don't care whether Linux becomes mainstream or not, apart from Netflix, LoveFilm and the like being available. I think Linux would be horrible to use if it were designed for people who don't actually like computers -- I get the impression OSX is like that though I only have experience of the iPad.

I keep hearing remarks about Ubuntu being buggy.

I am not a Ubuntu fan and wasn't when I was running it, but I must say that in three years of using it, I did not encounter any particular bugginess; it always did what I wanted.

Of course, I'm not a particularly bleeding edge user, but I was able to use recordmydesktop, VBox, and Ekiga, among others, with no issues.

I recently stopped using it altogether (except for one Wubi install) because of Ubuntu's behavior towards the community and its continuing drift into behaving in a self-congratulatory proprietary manner, with things such as Ubuntu One and Unity.

I used it from 8.04 to 9.10 and I noticed that with every new version it became more and more unstable (and I think that this is a logical consequence when the main aim of the developers has to be the integration of shiny features into the next release, which has to be done in 6 months, including beta testing, instead of fixing bugs of the previous releases). The release of 10.04 LTS, being buggy, with the major design changes and the general way Canonical was heading towards, was the thing to drive me away from Ubuntu. Installed Debian on my machines and was astonished how fast and stable they ran. I mean come on, this is Linux, not Windows. We should be able to use an OS when it is released, we shouldn't have to wait for the first point release or service pack to get an usable OS, especially when it is an LTS release, which normally is more aimed towards business users.

I agree. They are very different from Linux, and I would say also give Linux a bad name and are harmful to Linux.

I would like to refer to Ubuntu as a Window$ knock-off, and I think I will.