Ubuntu is wank.
Thank you.
Obviously people who want a toy linux they can run via GUIs love it. The rest of us who need a proper linux for hosting web sites, etc, realise what a load of sh*te it is.
fiesty f**king fawn
if they spent as long writing the software instead of thinking of stupid names itll be awesome
Whats coming next, busty bertha
lol Sam you really dont like it to do :P
No because theyve tried to be clever and just change things for the sake of it. Linux has been around for 200 years before Dapper Doris and the Heartbreakers decided to change everything.
The only people who like it are those who know nothing about Linux and just set everything to be a clone of windows.
Linux does not do GUIs well at all. Thats not a particular problem of Ubuntu though.
Quote from: SamThe only people who like it are those who know nothing about Linux and just set everything to be a clone of windows.
Your probably right in what your saying but I fail to see the point your trying to make. Your essentially saying its linux for noobs - thats hardly news is it? I know nothing of linux and have no interest in learning a non gui system - but I still like an alternative to windows and not having to pay for my OS which makes Ubuntu perfect for me (as a second machine anyway). Its a great introduction to linux for people who might go further with it later, and ok it might not be anywhere near as good for what you do with linux but then its not really designed for that type of user is it?
Ive heard a lot of long term linux users saying similar things lately - I think theres a bit of resentment at non experts using linux. Come on guys its not a secret club!! :o
Quote from: RivkidIve heard a lot of long term linux users saying similar things lately - I think theres a bit of resentment at non experts using linux. Come on guys its not a secret club!! :o
My "problem" with Ubuntu is that there are a large number of people that think its perfect for everything. It isnt, hell its hardware support isnt all that good. Plus I dont like GNOME at all. My personal preferences are OpenSUSE for the desktop, RedHat/Fedora for a server, and Centos for hosting (I dont know why I dont like SUSE Server editions, I just dont like them). The real resentment I think is that people wave Ubuntu as the the answer to every question. I suppose its a decent enough Intro, but thats all it is. Power users will typically have to switch to something with a KDE desktop, or head straight down to the command line eventually.
Quote from: RivkidQuote from: SamThe only people who like it are those who know nothing about Linux and just set everything to be a clone of windows.
Your probably right in what your saying but I fail to see the point your trying to make. Your essentially saying its linux for noobs - thats hardly news is it? I know nothing of linux and have no interest in learning a non gui system - but I still like an alternative to windows and not having to pay for my OS which makes Ubuntu perfect for me (as a second machine anyway). Its a great introduction to linux for people who might go further with it later, and ok it might not be anywhere near as good for what you do with linux but then its not really designed for that type of user is it?
Ive heard a lot of long term linux users saying similar things lately - I think theres a bit of resentment at non experts using linux. Come on guys its not a secret club!! :o
No I am pleased linux is gaining more support.
The problem I have is that, like me and nige were saying earlier, Ubuntus developers are in the same club as firebug. Just f**k around changing things for no reason making it wholely incompatible with everything else or being obsessed with style over substance.
I have a friend that have changed all his puters to nix including his kids and the thing which is a problem is games
his kids want to play but everything else he think is better and gets more out of a machines capacity than M$ OS:s does he has been tinkering and building puter for many gears had a computerstore serviced LANs for companies etc. etc. but he is manic does not give up he tweaks and manage somehow to get the games to work :D
Sam - totally agree that its style over substance which for pros and developers sucks - but style is what will attract Joe Average to Linux and away from windows. My g/f was well up for trying Ubuntu once she saw Wobbly Windows lol!!
Hopefully theyll eventually desire more substance and explore deeper into Linux versions, having used Ubuntu as a stepping stone.
My preference would be
Desktop - FreeBSD
Server - OpenBSD - never mind your flaky unreliable unix-lite (abbreviates to linux)
Ive gone back to Slackware :o
Sam, fair point mate, but at least its getting an introduction to Linux for people, I just hope people dont become over dependent in Ubuntus GUI interface!
I use Ubuntu on my P3 laptop becuase its not happy running XP... I went with Ubuntu becuase I really dont have the time to spend learning (some relearning) all the crap that comes with Unix when all I want to do is browse the net, watch some .avis and listen to some music :P
Im not really on about the user level stuff. Theyve changed the way it works under the hood so
1. People like you who dont care, dont care if it stays the same as redhat (the defacto standard)
2. People like me get f**ked off for change for changes sake.
So - use a server OS with a proper methodical release system, not hacked together buggy nonsense - Net or OpenBSD would be the best bet
Sam, if you dont like it, dont use it.
I am using it, largely because its fuzzy and easy while I figure out how things are really done. I have to agree it is annoying when trying to figure out how to do something that you have to either use the Ubuntu specific forums/wiki/etc or find out how to do it in Debian and then spend nearly as long figuring out where they moved that file to in Ubuntu.
I do have to disagree on your point about Linux GUIs though, for my money GNOME and KDE knock Windows GUI for six.
Id have to disagree with you there - I use FreeBSD as my daily OS and KDE as my windows manager when required, and I will be the first to admit that KDE and Gnome both look like cheap tat compared to even Windows 2000.
mmm perhaps Im just odd.
WinXP in particular looks very fisher price to me, whereas Gnome looks reasonably advanced but functional.
Win2K Pro remains my favourite windows for looks so perhaps I just like old looking OSs.
Go on then Sam - back up your argument.
Im actually interested as to why you think it sucks. No it wouldnt be my first choice for servers but then neither would a lot of other distros,
Personally I quite like ubuntu for the desktop - although I dont run GNOME or KDE or XFCE...
(Ok so I run gnome-session and gnome-panel but I use pekwm as my window manager)
Cornet
I think it sucks because theyve changed loads of sh*t for no reason, other than to be different.
Just like in vista when they move things about. Its no better having control panel in a grid rather than a list.
...and here was me expecting some sort of intellectual discussion on the subject
Well what more do you want? Im not a fan boy.
I was hoping for a bit more than "they changed sh*t", what sh*t have they changed that you dont like ?
Every distro does things different, ubuntu (and debian) maintainers do some strange things from time to time but I would always choose them over say Redhat or Fedora anyday.
You would why? I use linux for proper stuff not downloading porn.
Why in ubuntu does it not by default create a normal maildir ?
Quote from: SamYou would why? I use linux for proper stuff not downloading porn.
How about being senior sysadmin supporting over 120 production Linux servers (Debian/Slackware/SuSE) and ~30 Ubuntu Desktop systems for developers.... oh and not to mention our integration and test environments (also Linux) ???
Oh and included in that are MySQL servers with databases that are between 60GB and 250GB in size..
Is that "proper" enough for you !?
Quote from: SamWhy in ubuntu does it not by default create a normal maildir ?
There is an obvious reason for this. If you install and MTA (like Exim) then its a reasonable assumption that you want to do something vaguely useful with local mail. Now in using mbox format as default then it means that you dont need to install an IMAP/POP server in order to get your mail. Pretty much all Email clients (Thunderbird, Evolution, Sylpheed, mutt, pine, elm) support mbox format. You can just point it at the file and Job done.
Many of the aforementioned clients dont support Maildir ... so then you need to go and install a IMAP or POP server.
Im sure there are many other reasons why they chose mbox of Maildir by default but that appears to be the obvious one to me....
... oh and according to /usr/share/exim4/README.Debian:
Please note that most mail tools in Debian expect the local delivery
method to be mbox in their default.
If you want to change it to Maildir and cant be bothered to read the docs then just run:
sudo dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config
and you can select it part way through the configuration...
You seem to be a bit confused on email but never mind. But my point is this, why should i have to faff about to get it to work the standard linux way ?
The version of ubuntu that I had to work with didnt even come with a c compiler. What a load of sh*t. I had about 200 packages to install before I could even compile exim !
Well I assumed that you were complaining that exim does mbox rather than Maildir by default.
There is no real "Linux Standard Way" nearest thing is LSB (Linux Standard Base) and LFS (Linux Fllesystem Layout) both of which Debian and Ubuntu qualify..
As for not having gcc then its hardly rocket science to install (and if youre running a server then strictly you shouldnt have a C compiler on the box for security reasons)
oh and are you aware you can do:
apt-get build-dep exim4