digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Why (almost) everyone should try Ubuntu

maximumpc.com — If you've just started using Linux in the last year or two, chances are you're running Ubuntu. And if you're sitting on the fence contemplating trying Linux for the first time, you should definitely be considering Ubuntu. Here's why.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Shadowman, on 10/10/2007, -26/+118How about why (almost) everyone should try GNU/Linux? I don't think anyone interested in Linux should base their opinion on a single Debian-based GNOME distribution. Why not encourage them to try several distros? The Ubuntu fanboys will digg me down but it doesn't change the fact that some people may like PCLinuxOS better, or openSUSE, or Fedora, or some other distro. We don't want people to go back to Windows just because they don't happen to like Ubuntu.
    • n0ydz, on 10/10/2007, -12/+18I completely agree. Use some of the more easy to use distros, get your feet wet, gain experience, then join the ArchLinux community! :)
    • RamboJesus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+56Because GNU/Linux need a poster boy and Ubuntu is a very good one. Then once Gnu/Linux has taken over the world we can push for people to try all flavors of GNU/Linux.
      • munter1942, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28People don't want to be sitting around for hours installing versions of Linux. Seriously. They don't care about Linux or Windows, they just want to turn their computers on and suf the internet. If you're expecting someone with very basic computing experience so suddelnly pick up half a dozen versions of Linux and start messing about with them then I think you are insane
        • HalFTW, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7People with very basic computing experience are never going to even contemplate replacing their Operating system,. Any modern distro is easer to install than Windows, and plenty of people manage that... If you can install an app on windows with a GUI installer you can install most Linux distros.

          Plus there are many other distros with Live CDs, there is nothing special about Ubuntu.
        • kuyman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Do you mean "suffer the Internet"?
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21He speaks the truth. One of the big complaints from people new to linux is there is just too much choice. Once you become a little more experienced you realise this is in reality a strength. But for people new it can scare them away. By using Ubuntu as a gateway away from Windows the whole of Linux will benefit.

        If Ubuntu managed to take 10% of the market but your fav distro didn't increase in numbers at all, you still win. You will have better hardware support and better software support. The worst thing we can do if attack every new user who has always used the same OS and never had to think about it with a million different choices for things they don't understand. Let them make that first scary step. Then start to show them that while Ubuntu is a nice simple system, there are others that might be even better for them
        • CATSCEO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5munter and kazamx: very well put. :)
      • DonCarcharo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Ubuntu is great and Linux has made some wonderful strides but if this platform can't break 1% of the desktop market *AND YOU'RE GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE* there's likely a reason for that. GNU/Linux is a decent OS, Ubuntu is about the best user-friendly flavor I've used, but it's going to have to be better than decent for people to actively switch to it as a platform. And all this propaganda is putting the cart before the horse. Fix the OS, make it usable and people will come.
        • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"but if this platform can't break 1% of the desktop market *AND YOU'RE GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE* there's likely a reason for that."

          Sure there is. Or several reasons, in fact. One is sheer inertia. Another is that Joe Average haven't heard of Linux, or even don't know that a computer can run another operating system than Windows, or even thinks that Windows *is* the computer. Another is the lack of native Linux versions of well-known applications, including games. And then we have the historically accurate, but decreasingly accurate notions that "Linux is hard" and "it is only for nerds", etc.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The OS isn't broken; it doesn't have to be fixed. It's also very usable. Installing Ubuntu, and getting my wireless working with ndiswrapper and installing Beryl took me all of 2 hours.
    • scaine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34You should actually read the article, Shadowman. The author acknowledges that the article is written specifically geared for Ubuntu in the very first sentence. I think that encouraging everyone just to try GNU/Linux is a bad idea anyway - I was almost put off myself with some of the problems I was having with other distros. Ubuntu would never claim to be for everyone, but it's one of the most heavily "for the masses" distros out there. You need a good starting point for such a big change (to your O/S) and Ubuntu is an excellent choice in this respect.
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The other reason to get many of the people new to Linux onto the same distro is they can start to help each other out. If in an office 3-4 people move over to ubuntu they can all try to offer each other help if they can't do something. If they are using a mix of KDE, Gnome, Apt, RPM, etc. then what works for one won't for the others, now that will be frustrating when your used to everyone in your office having the same OS as you. Only having 3 others would be bad, but to have the 3 others on Llinux but still not able to help :-(
      • Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When I first tried Linux several years ago, I could not get the internet to work, installing and configuring Linux was a nightmare for a complete noobie. Ubuntu is a must for new users, since the last thing we want is to throw a new skier onto the steepest hill, bunny hill first then you can advise more advances OSes(by advanced I mean requires more experience to work with).
    • BassJunkie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I think I agree and disagree here. Firstly I have just recently converted over to Ubuntu as my OS of choice on my desktop PC at home. I still have Win XP on there but I can't remember the last time I booted into it (not least because I've got a VM of XP setup in Virtualbox :-D )

      When I first saw this story on the frontpage my initial thought was "oh no not another story about Linux that mentions Ubuntu in the title has made it to the frontpage!"

      After a breif read through the article he covers the main points nicely. He makes it very clear that Ubuntu is very user friendly (one of the things i like!) and does advise in the last paragraph that if you do want something more challenging to try some other distro's such as Gentoo and Slackware.

      I personally have enjoyed the learning curve with Ubuntu (I have it installed on 2 desktops and a few laptops (one of them setup as LAMP server! no gui there!) and have really got the Linux bug. I've always loved collecting various Live CD's of Linux distro's and trying them out and hope to Gentoo out as soon as I have some time to sit down and get the DVD booting correctly!
    • cantormath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21NO they do not act like the distro is the center of the universe. As a slackware and debian user, I am just glad to see people using Ubuntu/Linux instead of WINDOW, what is wrong with you people?!!
      • ispep, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Only a ubuntu fanboy would type it as ubuntu/Linux.
      • Ssullivan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's GNU/Linux, not Ubuntu/Linux...geez
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1iSep and Sullivan, I think his point was that if people are using Ubuntu, they're using Linux, and that;s better than if they were using Windows. Also, Ubuntu isn't that bad. It's essentially a user-friendly version of Debian. It's not OSX.
    • aiten, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15I'm inclined to disagree. I've used pretty much all the main distributions of Linux over the years, Fedora, CentOS, Redhat, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Suse to name just a few. I consistiently find that All the redhat ones are an absolute pain to install software on, yum is absolute rubbish, you constantly need to add repositories and they all have dependencies on software you can't get hold of, then you have to install a different package manager for java repositories... etc...

      I find that Ubuntu is the easiest switchover, and it is my desktop OS of choice, exclusively, so I may well be biased.

      My point is that I know what i'm doing with Linux, and yet I still struggle with some of the other distributions convoluted package management.
      • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6That's my feeling too.

        I'm a Linux sysadmin as part of my job, but at home I run Ubuntu server (no GUI).
        have installed Gentoo at work - but found it too much of a PITA to do at home.
        Portage just seems to break things more often than APT does - and much of what a distro comes down to these days is the package manager it ships with...

        Gentoo is definitly cool - in that you are encouraged to compile your own tight kernel on install (although you can use genkernel), and you have to learn about many of the crucial files.

        For swiftness and ease of use I've found Ubuntu a joy though.
    • AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Because Ubuntu is currently the most actively developed distribution.

      Debian is one of the best bases as it is, but Ubuntu tends to get the packages into thier repositories very quickly, and there are plenty of 3rd party repos due to its popularity. And while Ubuntu full install off CD may be a bit bloated, I love my KDE Ubuntu install which was all done by hard installing only the packages I need after using the mini.iso netinstall.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Because Ubuntu is currently the most actively developed distribution."

        Correct in the ease-of-use department, but incorrect otherwise. There is no generically "most actively developed distro". I know e.g. Red Hat employs a lot of people doing lower level stuff, including kernel work. That trickles down to Ubuntu users too. And other distributions work on their own specialty, which benefits users of other distros later on.
    • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3do any of them support Battlefield2?
      • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5am i getting dugg down because they do and thats a stupid question or because they dont and you dont want people seeing my question?
        • leobaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Every gamer should have a completely separate partition exclusively for windows gaming with nothing else to clog it up. No office, aim, or google desktop. Just games.
        • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i have one pc just for gaming and one right next to thats a junky dell thats used for everything else, and the ubuntu installed will not load on it, i even put an older formatted HD in it and still nothing so I don't know.
        • sirusvilla, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0No, Battlefield 2 runs natively in Windows. You might be able to run it in WINE or some sort of emulator, but ultimately, if you want to game, it is best to run your games in their native OS, which is predominately Windows. Of course, that could eventually change with emerging support for Ubuntu, but I doubt it will happen any time in the foreseeable future.
    • DextaRussell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This guy knows what he is talking about
    • potp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3See i don't want to waste time on configuring anything. i just want a system that works. ubuntu serves that purpose for my desktop atlest. on my laptop it didnt worked do to kernel problems with the acpi on the thinkpad r40e so on that i have mepis. i also have backtrack 2, freespire and fedora. all are nice but ubuntu just stands out because its just that ***** easy to use.
    • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ubuntu is good branding and consumers like good branding. Linux is NOT good branding. And it's not GNU/Linux, it is just linux. Ubuntu really shows what is possible with linux and you should be happy for that. Just like OS X showed what is possible with bsd. Ubuntu works and that is what matters here, not what is underneath. Branding and usefulness is what wins consumers, not technology, sad as it is.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"And it's not GNU/Linux, it is just linux."

        Richard Stallman begs to differ. :)
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1With all due respect, didn't OpenBSD show what was possible with BSD moreso than OSX?
        • pyrates, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Look at the amount of users who are using OS X compared to OPENBSD.
    • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amen, brother. I tried out probably four distros and three or four other free Unixes before I found one (OpenSUSE) that made me stick with GNU/Linux. I ended up switching to Ubuntu later, but it's not what got me started.
    • davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, I did what you're advising and tried a few distros and ended up liking Ubuntu the best. I tried Kubuntu for KDE, Fedora and OpenSUSE, and found Ubuntu to be the one I preferred the most (and had better hardware support out of the box than the others). That said, I think Ubuntu is definitely the BEST distro to START out with.

      After users have had a little time using Ubuntu they can branch out and try some other Linux flavors but the community support and hardware support make Ubuntu the best starting point.
    • sirusvilla, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0You make a good point. People shouldn't JUST try Ubuntu. Linux is a huge world of open source goodness. I've only just gotten into it myself. However, the article has a good point: Ubuntu's popularity is good for all distros in the end, as it increases interest in Linux as a whole. The more average users get into Linux, whether by Ubuntu, Fedora or whatever else, the more people will realize that their computing experience doesn't have to be dictated by massive corporations in Seattle and California. And that turns average users into curious users. Curious users who want to try other distros.
  • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21 You got that right...they go on like their distro is the center of the universe...
    There are many great distros out there to try...And maybe one won't suite your fancy...But don't give up after one try....Just cause one distro does not work for you does not mean they are all crap.
    • Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There are new users of Linux scared of even trying it out... or can't even figure out how to create a CD from an ISO. I think the best thing to do would be to build a guide of recommended desktop distros. One of the online quick guides like http://zegeniestudios.net/ldc would be awesome to use at a store front or online when shopping for a computer system. I think it would help take the fear out of which distro to pick. However, I think they should also have user commentary about each of them by those who have tried the distros out. Ubuntu is a great desktop distro, but it's not the only one out there.
    • cantormath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8NO they do not act like the distro is the center of the universe. As a slackware and debian user, I am just glad to see people using Ubuntu/Linux instead of WINDOW, what is wrong with you people?!!
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Some Ubuntu users deride people using other distros. I've had Ubuntu fans tell me that Fedora sucks because it isn't Ubuntu, and other things like that.
        • reptiler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If people tell you that then just reply that at least Fedora is all free unlike Ubuntu that still ships with unfree software.
          I don't want to say that this is a bad thing, it sure helps the common user to find his way to GNU/Linux, but it's still a much better argument than saying that Fedora sucks "just because it isn't Ubuntu".
    • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i think ubuntu is atrocious. i switched to debian because i liked the look and feel of ubuntu. ubuntu has horrible driver support for printers and ATI cards, not to mention how slow it runs. debian worked right out of the box, no extra drivers needed, and it runs like a new car compared to a dilapidated 1988 cutlass supreme that was ubuntu
  • Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -4/+80Ubuntu is the gateway drug.
    • RamboJesus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I'm high right now.
      • indiephoenix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Don't Bogart it, man. Be cool, and pass it on.
        • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The CD says that it is ok to pass on right on the cover.
    • evilregis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A drug that protects you from annoying viruses.
      • bieber, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't be silly. The ads _clearly_ state that those drugs only make it bigger and will not, in fact, protect you from diseases :-P
    • z0rz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I always thought it was a dell drug.
    • joebaloney, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Gateway to what? It's not a gateway its a destination.
    • DextaRussell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1For poor people
      • BbIT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Linux = poor???? more like Windows = Stupid.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Rather for people that don't like throwing money in the waste basket.
  • Spr0k3t, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17"The important thing is to pursue your own interests, try something new, and set your PC free." - Best part from the article.
    • MrSarcasm, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Free from what? :/ Games, Adobe's programs, or what?
      • sishgupta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10From proprietary monopolies.
        • joepaterno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Throw in evil and you'd have won the Linux buzz word trifecta.
      • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Free from DRM.
      • selrahc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually I'm free to run whatever program I want. I dual-boot.
  • troydoogle7, on 10/10/2007, -19/+8Good article but should be called..."Why (almost) everyone should try Ubuntu EXCEPT those who don't want to use terminal/ command line"... they should stick to windows. Give GUI option to all command lines scripts
    • EdgeOfEpsilon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2> "Give GUI option to all command lines scripts."

      You do realize that a 'script' can do anything. That's the point. They borrowed the name from early text processors called "Theaters." ;)

      The GUI will never be as powerful as a scripting language. Yes, scripts for common tasks could use GUI configuration options, and this will always be the case. To borrow a phrase, "Linux is like an onion. It makes you cry." Oh, and it has layers too. Observe:

      * Kernel Developers: uber-l33t hack3rs, very small group. Deals with the nitty-gritty hardware stuff
      * Command-line tool developers (Userland): More accessible to non-gods, therefore a larger group of developers. Deals with the APIs the Kernel guys come up with.
      * Scripters: Large group, easily accessible to developer types. These guys string together the command-line tools into task-specific scripts. Scripts aint pretty, but they're by far the easiest to write for a given complex task.
      * Application Developers/UI people: Generally harder than scripting. Often, just puts a friendly face on the scripts, cashing in on the older (and hopefully more mature) code. There isn't a GUI for most scripts because scripting is easier than making a GUI.
      * [L]users: Wonder why everything doesn't have a GUI tool.

      So, in short, promote adoption of all those neat rapid prototyping tools like Glade, and you'll see more GUIs for those neat scripts. But the scripts will always come first.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Scripts aint pretty"

        That depends on the scripting language and on the person writing the script. I usually try to write readable scripts.
    • Wakizaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1because CLI can be flexible than GUI
  • jamble, on 10/10/2007, -23/+15can someone please write an article on why nearly everyone should stop boring the world to death with why they should try linux/osx please. I'll digg that.
    • fugazied, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8You better go back to your X-box and leave the PCs to the big kids hey?
      • Ninjao, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4My Xbox runs linux and acts as my media centre in the lounge. (its not in the original case but built into a "wooden" housing to match my lounge)
      • monkeyManBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's elitist comments like that and the associated attitude from the Linux community which will prevent wider adoption of Linux.
        You either have a situation where only the "big kids" can use Linux (because of the level of knowledge required), or you support more people using it... you really can't have both. Btw - did you get beaten up a lot when you were a kid?
        • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It's elitist comments like that and the associated attitude from the Linux community which will prevent wider adoption of Linux."

          Only a fool would think that a random post on the internet sums up the collective attitude of a whole community.
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7leave the linux section of digg if you don't give a ***** about it. Is it really so wrong that people want others to use the same OS they love? I mean ***** you probably tell all your friends how Vista is a gift from god and that so and so game is really good and they need to try it out, this is no different you are just to ignorant to try out another OS or if you have and didn't like it, you are too much of a ***** to let others decide for themselves. Probably because when you did try it all your expectations were blown away by an ubuntu install that made installing windows look like you were building a ***** space station or some *****.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -9/+83Ok, if I try Ubuntu will you guys STFU about it?
    • bjweeks, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9
      • liltbrockie, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Can't we just block Linux Full Stop
        • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Don't like Linux? The way things are going you probably ain't going to enjoy the coming years...
          • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why? Do you think both Microsoft and Apple will go under? Promoting Linux is one thing, but most people have no idea how to spell Ubuntu, much less where to download it or how to install it. Market share might grow in the coming years, but don't hold your breath waiting for Linux dominance in the desktop user market.
    • Dexter77, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Nope, you just get more headache. I tried Ubuntu yesterday. After downloading and compiling libraries for an hour, I finally managed to get my Nvidia GT6600 working.. atleast till the next boot. Then it started to complain that kernel module has different version than the driver. That's where I quit.
      • Stemp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BinaryDriverHowto/Nvidia
        http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-9755/README/appendix-a.html

        No need for compiling for hours....
        • Dexter77, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I know there is a guide for it, as there is for everything in Linux. Stupid of me for thinking that I could just download and install it, like in Windows.
          • sacherjj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5First you post about compiling libraries, then you say you thought you could just download and install it like Windows. Why bother to compile things then? Do you do that often in Windows? How is doing a 2 minute search via Google harder than compiling binaries? It isn't. But then you wouldn't have something to complain about on Digg re: Ubuntu.
      • coredump0x01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Wtf libs were you compiling for nv drivers that took hours to build? Unless you're running a 486......

        Pretty much all of what you need is in the repositories, especially for an Nvidia card. There are also specific repositories for getting bleeding-edge versions of stuff like drivers and Compiz. All pre-compiled. Check out Envy too https://launchpad.net/envy/
      • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx

        thats the only thing you needed to do, compiling your linux driver from source may give you a slightly newer driver but there is no point when you can get it working damn near perfect by one install. Hell you didn't even need to do that you could have gone into synaptic searched for nvidia and clicked install.
    • ventralnet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0@Dexter77
      I can't get the installer to work on any system i've tried (most likely due to video issues). The installer freezes
      • kingmoffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3there is an alternative text mode only install cd. Try that.
      • coredump0x01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Were you using the installer from Nvidia's site? If so try installing the drivers with Synaptic (search for nvidia) or try using envy https://launchpad.net/envy/.
    • aiten, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6TJATL - Are you angry because we have found a product so good that we can't stop talking about it? Do you not experience that with Windows Vista or whatever other OS you use? What a shame for you.
      • MatttK, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12My OS (Vista) and my last OS (XP) were so good that I actually used them to do something productive or fun, instead of spending half the day configuring and the other half bragging. :)
        • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Ubuntu generally takes less setup than Windows now days, now days installing Linux is mostly automated you no longer have to manually configure network interfaces or xorg.conf etc... Sometimes you will hit a problem with specific hardware but thats about it. Even then there are things like the restricted drivers installer.

          I find its a lot less work than, install windows, install SP, install updates, install nvidia drivers, install antivirus, update antivirus, install decent firewall, install office, install photoshop, install extra drivers.

          Ubuntu its just install, update. If you do need extra stuff its readily available in the package manager. Codecs are also required but once again they auto install when needed.
      • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3stop being a fanboy. ubuntu sucks. it seems like a bunch of little kids took debian and made it ***** and called it ubuntu. debian ftw.
        • init100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That little kid first became a millionaire by selling the company he founded, Thawte Consulting, to Verisign for several hundred million USD. Little kid, yeah right.
      • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I use Ubuntu regularly, and I'm very happy with it, but that does not mean I want to talk about different "top 10 applications" lists that all have more than half the apps in common or stories about how "WINDOWS SUKS LOLZ UBUNTU FTW". That whole not being able to stop talking about something? That's called being a fanboy.
  • Clawg, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18"If you're a hardcore Gentoo or Slackware type, go away and read something else."
    *going away and reading something else*
    • Ssullivan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I read it anyways because I'm bored at work....slackware ftw!
  • JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20I've used Ubuntu, granted I'm a self-admitted Windows fanboy, but I still prefer other distros like Slackware or Debian to Ubuntu, it's just too idiot friendly.
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10So, you prefer Windows, but you want everyone to try Linux, and you hate an easy to use for anyone version of it. OK, no contradictions there. :)
      • TheDragonTony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No it makes perfect sense, he's a "self-admitted Windows fanboy" so he wants everyone to try the difficult to use versions of Linux so they get turned off to it so that they go back to windows.
    • brecke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it has to be idiot-friendly otherwise windows users might feel unconfortable using it (-:
    • joebaloney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Too idiot friendly... What the hell are you talking about? What does Ubuntu do that a hardcore hax0r like you gets offended by? Recognize your hardware?
      • Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, I'm wondering that too. You can do anything on Ubuntu that you can do on Slackware or Debian. I keep wondering why all these "leet haxx0r gods" like to put down useful features that just save time, you'd think they'd praise this.
    • zongamin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Window's fanboy?? They exist?
  • Hydraulix, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6[rant] I tried Ubuntu a while back. It's not a bad distro, in fact I have some former hardcore Windows friends that now run it. Why do I hate it so much? Because of the fanboys and every other ***** digg story about "how to install (something so ***** easy) on Ubuntu." I'm sick and ***** tired of hearing about Ubuntu and how everyone should try it. It's not perfect. In fact, it sucks (IMO). I wish everyone would just stop with trying to force other users to use a hack of a distro. If someone wants to try it out, they don't need 999393932930549327590823 digg stories telling them to do so. There's so many good distros out there (Arch, Gentoo, Slackware, etc, etc) that never get the front page because of stupid ***** Ubuntu stories. Just because you installed Ubuntu (wow, you can point and click, here's a cookie!) doesn't make you some grand master Linux guru. The next time you are tempted to post up another Ubuntu story, please remove the word Ubuntu and just say Linux. Ubuntu is not the only Linux distro out in the world. [/rant]
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Hydraulix,
      It isn't about who's leet, it's about who can make Linux friendly enough on the desktop for an average user. Who can take something difficult and make it easy. I'm a Mac user (plus 8 hours a day on a Windows box at work) and I'm pulling for whatever distro can make it simple enough for me to recommend to my less-technically inclined friends and relatives. Right now I tell them Mac because it's currently (IMO) the easiest to use product with the most solutions for what most people use a computer for.

      Part of Linux's problem is a lack of a public face for it. Lots of different distros, all with a dedicated fan base. No single hand at the wheel. Make it simple, make it work without having to go to a command line, make the open-source versions of high end programs work with 75% of what the original had. Stop the in-fighting between fanboys who are trying to say the same thing about different interfaces. Give Linux a public face that isn't afraid to stand in front of a microphone in a room filled with potentially hostile people and show the enthusiasm for something great that doesn't cost an arm and a leg like the Apple's and Microsoft's of the world. Make it just work and people will try it. As Rome wasn't built in a day, neither is Market share.
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5While I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement (its bloody annoying that on digg, Ubuntu === Linux) I don't agree that ubuntu sucks. For someone who uses a computer for the sake of using a computer, then Gentoo and other 'hard core' Linuxes are absolutely ideal however something that some people find hard to understand is that there are lots of people who want a computer that does just email, Internet and word processing with no aggro. For these people gentoo is not a good choice. Sure with Ubuntu you don't have the same insane choice that Gentoo gives you but if you you need to have a system that just 'does the job' and obviously, for many people this is what they want. Most people don't use computers to become a guru or even to become good at using them, they use them to get a job done and this is why ubuntu does well - it gives the user an amount of power appropriate to things that a normal user will realistically do - instead of allowing you to select and build your own kernel it allows you to select your own language, it doesn't give you tools for compiling and developing your own programs, it gives you the ability to write an essay or letter. For 90% of people this is what they want. For the other 10% of us we want to be able to play with computers to work out how and why they work and this is where Ubuntu is generally a poor choice, though as it has been said, Ubuntu is a superb way of introducing people to Linux. (Though I myself got into the game with SuSE 9 through 10, ubuntu keeps new users in the comfort zone while giving them a tantalizing glimpse of what is possible.) I think Ubuntu's popularity is a fantastic thing but I think the fact that people are not referring to it as Linux but as ubuntu is a problem - as soon as people get into the mindset that it is separate it will be a massive barrier to other distros, where people feel the switch may be like the one from windows > Linux (when in reality it is almost the same).
      [/counterRant]
      • Ssullivan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Someone get me a ladder for that wall of text!
  • roberto_deneero, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5I'd try it if they change the name. What a stupid freakin name. Ubuntu. How the hell does anyone expect anyone to trust using an OS they can't even pronounce. This label just says "So complicated you can't even pronounce the name." What great product packaging! Let me guess....Microsoft had something to do with this. Sounds like something stupid they would do.
    • melissawm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yeah. Like Gentoo and Suse are good names...
    • derjames, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4yeah ... Windows.... (WTF!) , Tiger, Leopard are also good names...
      • LilyFoxglove, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Microsfot Windows ran atop DOS and put all the content into... windows.

        While OSX (which you attempted to refer to with sub-version code names) was Apple's tenth Operating System.

        These are the sane names.
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+01) never judge an app by its name (c'mon - google?!)
      2) Ubuntu is meaningful and represents one of the important things that ubuntu stands for. Ubuntu is easy to pronounce, like the word 'linux' however there are two ways people pronounce it (though only one is right), Ub - uhn - too and U - boon - too. From what I understand, the first is the correct one.
    • N10E, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"The Beatles", "Nintendo Wii", "iPod"... I'm pretty sure these were all considered stupid names. The Beatles and the Wii probably had the most ridicule of their names during their era. Since when does Name equate to Quality?
    • Wakizaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From wikipedia: "the name of the distribution comes from the African concept of ubuntu which may be rendered roughly as "humanity toward others"..."
    • jfp51, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you can't pronounce a simple 'foreign' word like Ubuntu (really how hard is it) I really have to wonder if you should use Linux.
      • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, it does sound horribly unnatural in english, i love ubuntu, but i'm with roberto, the name's pretty dumb, ok not dumb, cumbersome rather, just like leenucks, I pronounce them both wrong on purpose because otherwise it just sounds bad, as far as "suse" and "gentoo" go, i don't know the correct pronunciation of those either, but they seem more manageable.
  • JeffreyLloyd, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11No thanks, I'll stick with OS X
    • Kelmon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's a tough one to call. I'm sticking with OS X as well for the moment but it's interesting to think again about the motivation for switching and whether I'd do it again. The thing was that I switched to OS X because Windows XP was driving me nuts at the time and, frankly, OS X looked really pretty (this at least is what got me looking at a Mac in the first place). However, if I had not been having problems with XP at the time then I doubt I would have switched and therefore would not have known how wonderful a Mac is to work with on a daily basis, i.e. little annoyances from Windows that I'd accepted no longer happened. I'm currently happy with OS X so its going to take something bad to happen before I'll look at Linux or even Windows again. In this respect Linux may well be much better than OS X but I'll never know this because I have no incentive to switch.

      I'll also note that you can't "try" an OS and expect a success. In order to be happy with it you have to switch completely. Just playing with it for a bit isn't going to do it.
      • dagaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've tried Yellow Dog, Ubuntu, openSUSE and Mandrake. Soon as I find a Linux distro that holds a candle to OSX I'm going to switch. I've been trying every now and then for the past couple of years, nothing has got me even close to switching yet.
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well then you're already running unix/bsd with a polished frontend, why would you bother? Unless you really want the customization and all it should be fine.
  • mikes1, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Slackware rules.
  • YuriSakazaki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I much prefer FreeBSD to Ubuntu, and I still use Vista as my main OS. It's nothing against Ubuntu, it's just personal preference.
    • MaHaGoN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've used linux off and on for a few years now, but never really looked into BSD. Why would you prefer it over Ubuntu?
  • elvenseven, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8I did, 15 different distros / versions. They're improving but no way any regular user would change.
    • frankzzsword, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4i did, been a month now
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Tell that to Dell!
      • diggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dell must be selling Ubuntu. I've got one on order and they've passed their estimated shipping date. Compared to a Vista notebook, this thing is gonna fly.
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have also tried all kinds of distros.

      Last night I installed Kubuntu. It took me 3 hours to get just a few things working. I setup my display and finally got it to accept 1680x1050 resolution! I also got truecrypt installed and working on my external drive, and I got Opera installed and working. But my wireless is still retarded, half the time when I boot up the wireless just doesn't work (I have no idea why yet), plus my MX 1000 mouse is doing some of the stupidest **** in some applications, it doesn't work right at all other then the 2 main buttons. Plus every 10-15 minutes it seems at least one application just freezes and crashes, everything is terribly unstable it seems.

      I'd love to use Kubuntu, but hardware compatibility is still worse with some things than you'd ever imagine. I don't understand how they have so many people working on it, yet I still can't just install it and use my native monitor resolution without manually editing xorg.conf, and I can't get my mouse to work semi-correctly at all. There is the entire reason 95% of PC users could never switch to Linux, they don't have the time or knowledge to get everything working at the same level in which it does from the first second in Vista.
  • DangerCollie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You have another option to try Ubuntu with KDE in Kubuntu. Functionally it's not much different, but my experience is Windows users are slightly more comfortable with the look and feel.

    It's rare you need to use the command line for anything with Ubuntu. I had to use the command line to install the Flash plugin for Firefox, but that was the way Adobe packaged it. You can install most programs with adept with just a couple mouse clicks.

    Multimedia support can require a little reading. Ubuntu can't include some proprietary codecs for video because of legal reasons but there out there with a little effort.
    • neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3These days you can install through firefox. When it pops up to tell you that you need additional plugins, it lets you install from that dialog now.
      • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pretty sure you're not supposed to do that, or at least it used to be that way, bypassing apt and all...

        Either way, users should find the "help and support" fairly useful, and I assume non-power-users are fairly used to reading that sort of thing
    • noerrorsfound, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You currently have to use the command line to edit your xorg.conf so you can use a refresh rate that doesn't give you headaches. The Flash plugin installation on 64-bit (modern) computers could be easier: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202537
      Adobe needs to get with the times and release a 64-bit plugin.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think you need to use the command line to edit xorg.conf. Unless it is different in Ubuntu than Kubuntu. Last night I spent a lot of time trying to get things working in Kubuntu, gladly I found that I could browse to etc/x11/ right click on xorg.conf, and select edit as root. :P
  • worldofnic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Replying to so-called Shadowman: I'm an RHCE and have used Red Hat/Fedora at home since 4.2, but even I've switched to Ubuntu (on my laptop). It just works. :-( I hear promising things about Fedora 8, but there's some serious catch up needed there.

    I've even discovered the joys of non-RHEL/CentOS on servers recently. e.g. "apt-get install request-tracker3.6" It ain't that easy on RH flavoured servers.

    I'm still a Red Hat fanboy, but Ubuntu could make serious in roads unless they're careful. As Windows, SunOS and Red Hat all proved before - if it's on your workstation, you'll probably put it on your server. If Ubuntu goes that way, so does Red Hat's (OS) business.
  • delusr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4More on the news Ubuntu is now going to use Microsoft advertisement because like Ubuntu, Microsoft is "young", "innovative" and "cutting edge".
    • Wakizaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well I thought M$ is a photocopying company :))
  • BSX98, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Or, we shouldn't switch to Ubuntu because USB peripherals stop working every five minutes, and even the mighty command line can't find the module you're trying to alter to make your computer do something as simple as not shut off your mouse.
  • seaners, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3anyone else think that even if you were interested, (which i guess i kinda was), that was just so boring?
  • miyamotofreak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I really dislike Windows. So I bought a mac. And I love it. But over time I have some philosophical differences with it (most of it being I prefer full screen windows instead of like 5) so I found that golden spot with Ubuntu. I'm gonna probably get a Dellbuntu soon.
    • zongamin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't do it - ubuntu = good - Dell = awful
  • LesserEvil, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Linux is like a little kid that wants attention. "Bah, i can do this, i can do that, i'm becoming popular, this is why you should try me, blah blah".
  • cantormath, on 10/10/2007, -11/+11NO they do not act like the distro is the center of the universe. As a slackware and debian user, I am just glad to see people using Ubuntu/Linux instead of WINDOW, what is wrong with you people?!!
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why's he being dugg down? He's right, the author clearly noted that the article was for "newbs", said he admired the dedication of gentoo and slackware users, talked about ubuntu being a gateway to the entire GNU/Linux community and how a growing Ubuntu community helps other distros, recommended trying other distros eventually, and cited real reasons for choosing Ubuntu. If you want to cry about your distro not being mentioned, you're illustrating the very reason why Ubuntu was chosen over your distro, you're too uptight and competitive with other distros, which speaks poorly of you, your distro, and your community. The distro wars really need to stop, Ubuntu users need to realize (and I really think they do, but since everyone gets sore over "ubuntu" in the title instead of GNU/Linux, the Ubuntu community can make that little change for the sake of other distros) that other distros do in fact exist, and other distros need to get over the fact that Ubuntu is more popular on the desktop than their distro, who really cares? If you chose your distro because it worked best for you, good, that's great, now shut up we're all in the same boat here.
  • dstz, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Too bad I use my PC for gaming, work and music, and that two of those three activities are not possible on Ubuntu (save for abandoning the great softwares that I took years to learn and that fits my needs like no other, as of today, could).
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Try Audacity for music creation - it's surprisingly good.
      Ardour is also cool.
      http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
      http://ardour.org/
    • noerrorsfound, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I use Gentoo for gaming. Wine works well for many games, and there are a lot of native ones to play, too. Soon we'll have Unreal Tournament 3 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars for Linux!

      Valve's Steam program runs through Wine and so do many of the games available on Steam.
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know what your work is, or what games you play, but I do all three of those things on my Ubuntu laptop.
    • deadbaby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah it's a shame Linux doesn't support gaming, work or music. Has anyone asked Linus lately when he plans to write support for music support into the kernel?
      • sirusvilla, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0I think this is sarcasm. I assume it is sarcasm, since work and music are very to manage on Linux, and gaming is more possible with each distro update.
  • chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17I don't care what OS I have installed as long as it runs the 3rd party apps I use. And at this point in time Windows is the only one that does.
  • chingy1788, on 10/10/2007, -8/+9If you're happy with what you got, whether its Windows, MacOS, Linux
    stick with it and never change
    • annoia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6My girlfriend (at the time) was happy with her Windows ME... This, in spite of being afraid of having more than three programs open (eg. winamp, browser, word), and in spite of not at all touching the machine, when she burned a CD. On several occasion I heard her explain a crash, in all seriousness, with her having too many programs open (about five) at the same time. But no, she refused to install Windows 2000 or anything else, she was perfectly happy with Windows ME... Trust me, people can be happy with everything, and need to try something else.
    • AdamFromMyspace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I have a friend that happily drove with a broken, bent, and stuck clutch lever on his motorcycle for months until I finally got fed up and replaced it for him. It was a world of difference and he was very glad the change happened.

      Just because you're satisfied with your OS doesn't mean you won't be more satisfied with another OS.
  • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I agree with what he says about just having it work. It's not as if I don't have the expertise to deal with an OS, it's just that there's better things to do like read every singe article on the Digg main page.
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I wonder why people are so against Mandriva. I think it or pclos makes a way better startup than Ubuntu. The setup and package managers are just stupid easy.
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I really don't know. However remember, the fact that we can choose to use whichever Linux we want is one of the massive privileges that Linux brings! I doubt people have something against it but chances are at some point they will try it. Once you get familiar with one OS it is easy to try out another without worrying about programs that you use - if it works on one, it will probably work on another. This is real choice - not the choice of 293 windows vista editions. Enjoy the freedom to choose!
  • jezmck, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9buried since ubuntu publicity is pissing me right off!
    • winmywii, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2why?
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0As opposed to doing it in private?
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I dugg you up because you're the only one that's admitting why you don't like Ubuntu articles, unlike the rest of the replies.
  • trusttimothy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"Some of you die-hards may find all this “growth of Linux” talk offensive, preferring to horde all this Linuxy goodness for yourselves. Well, that's fine, too. Even if the unimaginable happened and Linux went totally mainstream, there'd be nothing stopping anyone from creating ever l33ter distros that no sane n00b in the universe would ever try. But really, you guys aren't supposed to be reading this anyway, so go away and let me talk to the newbs some more."
    This sums up the article. And because of that it's fine.
    • Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm so leet, my favorite linux distro is just a hello world in C.
  • Redz0ne, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Boring
  • noch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Wow, you guys are ***** idiots. Give yourselves a round of applause.

    Obviously, if you like slackware/Debian/what the hell ever Ubuntu isnt for you. Feisty offers windows users a very easy transition into the Linux world, making partitioning, installing, wifi installation out of the box (thats a great accomplishment) so easy a Geico caveman can do it. Period. "Blah blah blah, give me a cmd prompt . ." stfu, you can use different flavors of linux, YOU WANT A COOKIE?
    • lamech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The screen goes black when I try to install - I have tried multiple versions of Ubuntu and gone through quite a few discs. Do you have a solution for getting Ubuntu running and doing what I need it to do easier then putting in a windows disc and installing that.
      • celkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The screen goes black? Are you installing it on a computer or a nail clipper?
  • Midnitte, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yea... not that hard to type make install....

    But ubuntu isnt the only linux distro out there, alot of them are pretty awesome =)
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2As I have said before and will say again, if you don't like it, use something else! That is the beauty of using Linux - you have a really wide high-quality selection of distros to choose from to find the one that suits you perfectly! There is no such thing as a prefect distro, just the ones that does what you want and the ones that don't, except linspire of course ;-)
      • kiddcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The beauty of Linux is that if you use something else, you get the exact same thing, cuz all the distros pretty much ship the same software just with a different installer. And posts about how you think lots of distros are beautiful just makes you sound like you've had a lot of the coolaid.

        And because of that, all this Digg spam trying to get people to change distros is completely pointless. To me it's like trying to get someone that's already converted to a religion to switch churches to the one down the street.
        • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I sort of see your point however there are a lot of good distros out there - i mean even gentoo looks really nice if you install the theme packages etc. There are some really poor ones however. But if you are not happy with something then there is no point sticking with it.
    • nbcaffeine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1sudo make install -dontforgetallthoserandomdependencies
  • amras86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I agree with scaine up there. People new to linux need a good experience right away. Ubuntu is always there to give that experience. Gentoo and Slackware could turn a user off pretty quickly.
    • weizbox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It wouldn't turn off those who wish to know more about their system and how Linux works. I know Gentoo helped me to learn Linux very quickly as it was my first distro I stuck with for more than a month. If thats your objective, it's a great place to start. But yea... if you want something that most likely will run nicely with all your hardware with less than a minute of interaction for the install, Ubuntu def works well and will get you running very fast.
  • laytoncy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3How about, why almost everyone should not try Linux. I've used several "flavors" of Linux and currently have feisty and edgy installed on 2 different machines. But until they make it so you can upgrade your graphics drivers to support native monitor resolutions out of the box why would anyone who doesn't want to tool around in a terminal even think about trying Linux. For instance, my one LCD supports 1600x1200 and the vanilla install with my NVIDIA 6800 Ultra only goes up to 1024x768. So, you have to edit the xorg.conf file. I'm sorry, but that's too much for many users to tackle just to upgrade a video driver. Anyway, until you can double click on things to install and have the real ease of use that some other OS's that get bashed Linux will not be mainstream or a real viable desktop alternative. IMHO
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Going backwards:
      > "until you can double click on things to install" - you can - for an example - visit the skype website, download the installer, double click and select install.
      > "why would anyone who doesn't want to tool around in a terminal even think about trying Linux." - I have not *needed* to use a terminal to do anything to setup ubuntu - graphics drivers can all be installed with a graphical tool (restricted drivers manager) included in the install
      > "until they make it so you can upgrade your graphics drivers to support native monitor resolutions out of the box" - well apart from Mac OS what the hell OS do you use that detects and uses the correct resolution for your monitor - I'm sure as hell windows doesn't - 800x600 anyone?
  • BadAsh71, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15I am a programmer at a "Microsoft Shop" and have been using Windows for years but always wanted to try Linux. Years ago I downloaded Slackware and had no idea where to start so I bought a shrink wrapped copy of Red Hat from a local store, stuck in the CD and immediately had that sinking feeling that this was not going to turn out pretty. Drivers and Installation Programs were pretty bad back in those days.

    Over the years I have tried just about every mainstream and some off-the-cuff Distros out there and the one that I keep going back to is Ubuntu. It just works. You don't have to learn how to compile everything including the kernel to install it like (Gentoo), it has a very user-friendly install program and by default it utilizes one of the most standard and configurable desktop managers, GNOME.

    I know a lot of Windows "fanboys" prefer KDE because it looks and feels like Windows and I was there once too but I have found that the Gnome Desktop is just so much better when it comes to making it look and feel just the way I want it. With Gnome and Beryl I can set my system up to look and feel just like Windows Vista or with Gnome, Beryl and Awn I can easily have that Apple Mac OS X look and feel.

    Yeah, it takes a little work to get Gnome to look and feel the way you want but it is well worth it to learn that.
    But as for the original topic, you just can't beat Ubuntu. No other Linux Distro (other than Red Hat) has such a solid core (Debian), large user community and greater adoption by other distros. Mepis, Linspire and Freespire are all based on Ubuntu.

    The other big thing Ubuntu has going for it, besides the huge user community, is its Debian core. IMHO, Debian is a much better core Linux than Red Hat ever thought about being. Just try comparing Synaptic Package Manager to Red Hat/Novell Yast. Yikes, I can't believe people actually use Yast. Synaptic Package Manager, the GUI for Apt-Get makes installing, updating and uninstalling software a breeze. If you are a Windows user and fear the dreaded "install by compiling on your own machine" mentality seen in the past on Linux, you will love Debian Distros, especially Ubuntu.

    Again, thats my opinion... but, you owe it to yourself to give it a try.
    • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I absolutely agree with pretty much every point you have made however I do feel that KDE is much more customizable than GNOME (gnome is great because it K.I.S.S. and goes for an approach that 'makes sense' rather than imitates what people have learn previously - i.e. an Applications menu rather than a shiny blue K.). KDE is certainly more flexible and defiantly more fully featured but the sheer amount of things you can change is easy to see as being daunting. Either way if it ain't broke don't fix it. While I really like KDE and generally dislike gnome and all the apps I use (almost anyway) are Qt based I use Ubuntu's default gnome desktop because it works. Kubuntu sucked when I tried it - it is really buggy and far less polished than Ubuntu and is missing many of its trademark features and though I know have kubuntu-desktop installed on top of ubuntu I still use Gnome because it does what I need and does it well - sure KDE does it better and really I would love to be using KDE but, as I have said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! And again, a fantastic write up there! I totally agree with your points!
      • BadAsh71, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The good news for people like yourself that prefer KDE but dislike Kubuntu is that Linspire/Freespire are now using Ubuntu as their base and Linspire has one of the most impressive and user-friendly implementations of KDE that I have ever seen.

        It looks like the merge for Linspire and Freespire to use Ubuntu as their backbone is taking longer than they originally planned but once they are done, you will have a solid Ubuntu base with the ultra modern KDE implementation that Linspire has had for years. To top that off, you will finally have the option of using CNR or Synaptic (Apt-Get) to install any and all Debian Packages so that is ubber cool.

        Even though I do prefer Gnome, I may check out Freespire for a while once it is released. I tried Linspire years ago and liked the interface but hated the fact that CNR was subscription based (at that time) and that simple Apt-Get installs were very hit or miss (if available at all).
        • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The CNR would be a great help for linux. That plus drivers and Widescreen resolutions on install and mythTV not writting 100% of diskspace and freezing the whole system on reboot would really help linux.
        • mossblaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I dislike Linspire because of it lacks one of the most valuable features of linux - Open Source. Free spire still isn't up to scratch also. The other thing is that Linspire is it has a tweaked KDE not a pure KDE also I don't see what click 'n' run offers over debian's apt-get system appart from commercial software in the default repos.
    • weizbox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1'You don't have to learn how to compile everything including the kernel to install it like (Gentoo)'

      You don't need to know how to compile in order to install Gentoo. All the programs are compiled when selecting a package to emerge via the package manager, portage... no manual compiling needed there. As well, you can setup the kernel using genkerel, which configures the kernel automatically for you. http://gentoo-wiki.com/Genkernel

  • BritSwedeGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Personally I'd recommend Puppy Linux, it's small, written from the ground up and seems to run on more hardware than most distros.
    • oobuntu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and it looks like windows 95?
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1WHAAATTT???
      Puppy linux has it's place, along side DSL and a few other distros, but I can't believe you just recommended it for full time use on the desktop, that's just silly, Ubuntu is the sane choice based on the sheer number of packages alone (this can be applied to debian as well iirc thanks to utnubu facilitating debian and ubuntu package "sharing"), not to mention the installer, the community, and the fact that apt-get is arguably the most critically acclaimed package manager/system out there.
  • whiteguysamurai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I used ubuntu for 3 weeks before i started to miss my games.
    I liked it, but i finally realized i made a pretty lean and secure XP install too, with the help of a few select apps.
    I would like to dual boot, but i don't see a reason to now.

    When Linux starts to innovate instead of get you by, i will go back.

    • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, if Windows-only games are what you consider "innovation", then there's really no reason for you to switch yet (unless the games can run under Wine / Cedega too). But from the other things (in my experience) it kicks Window's backward ass once you're more familiar with it. Depends what you do I guess.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I second that. After installing it for one day. I said to myself..."Now what?"
      It's like diet soda.
  • Graflok, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2My experience with Ubuntu is that it is completely worthless. I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu PPC. All crashed during install on P3/P4/G3 machines. Live CDs crashed too. But, I've installed more than a dozen non-Ubuntu distros on the same machines and others with no particular problems and have used Linux for years and have programmed under Linux.
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3After useing ubuntu for a while, i have tried sabayon and really enjoyed it, the 64 bit version runs very well on my pc (i see the slight speed increase in some apps) Im learning the package system. Fedora was a good distro as well, rpms are easy to work with. For ubuntu try www.getdeb.net
  • Sethbacca, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Gaming is the primary thing, if more commercial games were targeted at Linux I'd be more inclined to use it as my primary OS. I've played with various linux distro's for fun but would never seriously switch unless it had native gaming support.

    For those of you that are going to spout about WINE and whatever, I dont want to have to spend an hour tooling with my computer to play a game, I want to get on and play thats it. That is what Linux is lacking is 3rd party commercial software support.
    • bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I tried WINE a few months ago. Tried to install Monopoly (sounds simple). it Installed.
      But never played.
  • kryptman40k, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1spam!!
  • qbelek2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I sometimes wish my computer needs where so little to be satisfied by Ubuntu...
    • monkeyManBoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3are you saying that you can't get porn on Ubuntu?

  • BadAsh71, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Gamers that want to use any Linux Distro, Ubuntu or not should check out Cedega. This is a gamer-centric version of Wine that makes it easy for installing and running Windows games on Linux.

    http://www.transgaming.com/products/cedega

    NOTE: I'm not a gamer, nor do I work for TransGaming/Cedega but since this topic always comes up in such threads i thought I'd share
    • LordSlashstab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0too bad they say nvidia is recommended :(
    • Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wine is the base of the project, where most of the work is being done. Wine is currently a beta software project, intended mainly for developers, testers, and early adopters at the moment. Despite Wine's beta limitations, tens of thousands of people nevertheless use "vanilla" Wine successfully to run a large number of Windows programs.

      Crossover Linux is a product made by CodeWeavers that is based directly on Wine with a few proprietary add-ons. Unlike the biweekly Wine releases, Crossover releases are rigorously tested for compatibility with Codeweavers' supported applications in order to prevent regressions. CodeWeavers employs a large portion of the Wine developers and provides a great deal of leadership for the project. All improvements to Wine eventually work their way into Crossover.

      Cedega is a product from Transgaming. Transgaming forked Wine back in 2002 when Wine had a different license, closed their source code, and rebranded their version as specialized for gamers. Transgaming currently gives back very little code to Wine. Cedega is not just "Wine with more gaming support" - many games run better under Wine than Cedega. Currently, Wine has more advanced Direct3D support than Cedega, but Cedega still has more advanced copy protection support due to Transgaming's licensing of (closed source) code from a handful of copy protection companies. Unlike Crossover, most improvements to Wine don't get into Cedega due to Cedega's proprietary licensing.

      from http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-18c88a81ff4d4972eaea142e7e1e3a666c50fe72
      Long story short, use Crossover not Cedega because 1. Transgaming is a bunch of bastards 2. Crossover contribute back to wine 3. Crossover seems to have better support than Cedega
  • 4eloBek, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1maybe it should read: why almost everyone iz lazy to try Ubuntu?
  • kahrn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I use fedora myself, but I'd hardly go as far to say that almost everyone should try ubuntu. It's early days and the general public should probably wait a few years. Until they'll be able to use the system and avoid using the command line entirely, it's not ready for most people IMO.
  • 0ppenheimer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I am so god damn sick of hearing about Ubuntu.
    • DeadPanDan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But you like the feeling. If you didn't you would just move along.
      And that makes you an *****.
  • amras86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree with the majority of people defending Ubuntu. I mean, if you are new to Linux, you don't want to use something like Gentoo or Slackware and get discouraged quicker then you get started.
  • DigiRaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Ok I've tried Ubuntu and well quite frankly its not ALL THAT. Digg has an orgy of Ubuntu its ridiculous. I ignore them as I browse through digg but frankly it flames itself in front of my face every damn day. Its like an annoying kid that thinks his ***** is better than anyone elses. You know what? Ubuntu SUCKS! You get what you pay for. If you hate my comment digg me down but for others that are tired of seeing Ubuntu digg me up. You know there are better flavors of linux out there than the hard on Ubuntu. :p
    • joebaloney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's better about the other flavors of Linux? I mean better implies some sort of universal quantifiable item, so what is it?
  • polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I just wish I could get my wireless card working. dang drivers.
    • BadAsh71, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, that is one bad thing about the Feisty Fawn release of Ubuntu, lots of Wireless Card issues. Since I don't use connect wireless from any computers at home I don't have an issue and don't really know what the main problem is/was but from what I remember from a glance at the Ubuntu Forums after Feisty's release was that there was some fundamental problem with Linux Wireless Drivers in general but Ubuntu took the heat because they were the first to implement the changes (Security???).

      I may be dreaming but I thought there was some issue like that.... and what the specifics are, I have know idea but if you are a wireless user and you use Linux, Ubuntu's discussion forums have a lot of info on the subject.
    • polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have a Broadcom card in my laptop, running Feisty. I followed a tutorial on the Ubuntu forums from someone who had the same card. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=201902 At some point, I ran into a problem. I am not sure what I did wrong, but I just need some extra time to sit and play around with it. At step 15 or so, I get an invalid driver response. They use this: 2.6.17-10-generic. but mine is this: 2.6.20-16-lowlatency when I grep it. I am not sure if that has something to do with it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.