Just because there isn't enough standardization to make documentation for everything universal, isn't an excuse for breaking away from the basic standardization that already exists and is helpful!

I appreciate how much Ubuntu developers give back to Debian. They could do it more efficiently if Ubuntu didn't go out of its way to make pointless changes.

Don't you guys understand the difference between making a change that may be helpful (at least to some people), and making a change which is pointless and harmful?

Breaking away from Debian's standard software repositories is a change which has potential upsides and downsides.

Breaking away from the basic *nix de facto standards is a change which only has downsides. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Or, in the case of Ubuntu--If it ain't broke, don't break it.

Just because some things are different doesn't mean it's a good idea to make other things different for no good reason.

Note that while there may be hundreds of Linux distributions, the vast majority of them are based on a handful of "big" ones. In particular, a large chunk of them are based on Debian--close enough that most of the documentation is essentially compatable. Ubuntu could have been one of these, had they not gone out of their way to break away from some basic *nix standards.

It's not a competition. Or at least, it shouldn't be. To demand that the only documentation you care about is Ubuntu specific documentation is to demand unbelievable amounts of duplicated effort on the part of those people writing documentation.

Exactly what benefit is there supposed to be for forcing a rewrite and parallel maintenance of documentation for Debian vs Ubuntu?

Which is thanks to Debian, of course, although Ubuntu decided to duplicate repository maintenance effort by branching off. Besides the obvious downsides to branching off, there are also potential upsides.

Do you have examples?

Thanks

Major ones obviously include Knoppix, Xandros, and Linspire. Then there are all the Knoppix derivatives (too many to list), and Morphix derivatives.

IsaacKuo, were you answering to me? - I'm only referring to Ubuntu. - I would like to know in which aspects - you think - it differs from a "pure Debian" / "pure Linux" (note? - these are different) distribution.

Thanks

Oh, sorry--I thought you were asking for examples of Debian derivatives.

My main complaints are with the non-standard way of deactivating the root account/requiring the use of sudo by default, and the non-inclusion of "make" (the standard *nix build tools). The latter might hopefully be changed.

Hi Isaac, thanks.

This is a note from a Linux newbie, and Ubuntu has produced alot of new Linux newbies... (That's more than great!) - As a meanwhile-not-so-Linux-newbie-anymore (I think I would be ready to try out configuring Debian from scratch) I still think Ubuntu has brought us (the Open Source and Linux community, to which I'm proud to count, i.e., by participating here) new users.

There are so plenty of former Windows users that are just happy to find an alternative, really usable system at their hands.
Those thousands of newbies rushing in from Windows would work as root, otherwise - all the times!
There's no other reason!
OK. - Did you know I've installed almost 10 GigaBytes of software on Ubuntu, without ever needing "make" (OK, I think I had to use it once.)

Again, please note, I've (almost) never used "make". And I'm a software developer by profession, so I would be able to use it.

I agree that including "make" would be about 1.5 MB of size, only (not worth to talk about) and it really should be included - for the sake of more experienced users's mental sanity! ;)

One should, though, really not make a scandal out of that missing package, as Ubuntu is an honest and highly well-designed Linux distribution, and most welcomed, at any rate.

Although I've changed the default configuration of my Ubuntu versions, I do absolutely trust in Mark Shuttleworth's and his managers's decisions. They may be right or wrong - at least, they're fair - and human...

Thanks

You're welcome.
As a linux newbie, you aren't aware of how other Linux distributions handle this problem. The solution is simply to disallow a graphical login of root (instead of disabling the root account entirely). This prevents newbies from logging in as root all the time just fine.

Disabling the root account entirely breaks some of the assumptions that some software make--for example, KDE's assumption that a root password exists (so it can ask for it when the user wishes to configure stuff which requires root access).

Yes, yes. I get by with Debian just fine without ever using "make".

And also for the sake of inexperienced users wanting to use nVidia's official drivers.

Now, we all agree that the best thing would be if everyone released open source drivers for everything and they can all just be included in all Linux distributions without restrictions or fees. Right?

Unfortunately, that's just a fantasy world. In the real world, neither nVidia nor Ati want to release their code. So let's look at the difference between the way the two have decided to release their drivers:

nVidia - released drivers assuming the standard basic "make" method of installing software - Yippee! Out-of-box compatability with virtually ALL Linux distributions! All of the ones that include the basic minimum software build tools, that is.

Ati - released drivers in binary package form...rpm form in particular, since that's the most popular format. Ouch! You have out-of-box compatability with rpm based distributions (hopefully...rpm distros aren't entirely compatable with each other), but the rest of the Linux world is left to their own devices.

There's also a third extreme, which you can see in the web browser Opera. If you look at their download page, there are many binary packages for many different distributions and CPU architectures. That represents quite a bit of testing and effort for all those different combinations.

Ubuntu is targeted at the home desktop user who won't need make by default.
Seriously, how difficult is it to "apt-get install build-essential"?
And about the whole "no root"/sudo issue, I think it's a good idea that all the actions needing root privileges require confirmation. Yes for us more experiences Linux users who are used to having a root account it takes getting used to, but you can't just think about it from our (experienced users) point of view. It really dose make sense to have to put in a password to do things that effect the whole system, and there is nothing stopping you from enabling root after the install (or even during the install from the alternate CD), it's just a security measure. As you may know, many users coming rom windows compare the root user to the Administrator user in windows, and anything other than the admin user in windows is crippled, so they instinctively want to use root, without knowing how dangerous it is to use root all the time.
Although I do agree with what you say about binary drivers (which I can't argue with), I would rather see the day when Linux didn't need binary binary than the day when we NEED make. Bit that's even more off topic than I wanted to get.

why does everyone like going about things the hard or long way??? just System > Administration > Synaptic > build-essentials...it's done then.

This discussion is long past how to just install build-ssential. :p

If you want to login as root, I believe all you have to do is assign a password to root. There may be a particular command for that. If I'm right, Ubuntu hasn't changed code, they're just using the bits and pieces a little differently. For example, anyone can create a package which accomplishes many actions without necessarily changing the options themselves. Build-essentials is one such example. In the Linux world there are frequently many packages which are different but perform the same top level task. One thing that makes distributions different is which packages they pick. Perhaps Ubuntu has added code to the open source world -- I really don't know. The end result is still GPL. If you want an example of a distro that has truly broken things, check out Linspire. Adding almost anything that doesn't come their CNR breaks many dependencies. With Ubuntu I favor their repositories for what I need but have yet to find a generic deb package or source package that wasn't compatable. If there really was a pure *nix way there wouldn't be hundreds of distros. Perhaps I'm yet to be bitten by Ubuntu's *nix transgressions. From my perspective, I haven't seen them.

"How hard is it to just install build-essential?"

Why not just include it? It's already on the CD taking up space, so it's not a space issue. It's clearly not a security issue, as almost every other major desktop Linux distro includes it already. New users who don't need it won't know it's there, and there are plenty of other extraneous services included with Ubuntu that will actually take up resources (things I need to deactivate with BUM like the Bluetooth services).

The problem isn't that Ubuntu is doing something different from other distros. There's a reason, for example, that it chose to use sudo instead of root. However, there is no good reason to differ from other distros in not including make.

Seriously, what compelling reason is there for leaving it out?

Users who want it will be happy it's there.
Users who don't want it won't know it's there.

If you want to use a root shell then use "sudo -i" that logs you in as root, but yes you can add a password to root and so enable it, which I have done as sometimes I like to actually be root. But sudo covers root logins by th -i option. Ubuntu contributes to Debian by giving code back.
Really the whole point of having so many distros it that you can pick th one that meets your needs as a user rather than having to conform to a specific way of doing things, that is both a strength and a weakness (depending how you look at it) of Linux in general. You have the capability of customizing to your needs, but at the same time it makes support (documentation) impossible to unify

I do understand what your saying. If it was installed by default then no one who didn't need it would't notice. What I dont disagree with is the other point raised