Obviously Gentoo should be recommended to the new people...since it is so quick to install and update, and everyone should use the "-*" keyword so they are sure to get the most stable system ever!
I heard that Clarke just got his Gentoo compile completed yesterday. That didn't take long at all.
Goodspeed, weren't you one of the Fedora fans...I'd be interested in hearing what Fedora users think about the newer releases...I've never really paid attention since Core 1.
I was on the Fedora bandwagon for a couple of reasons:
- Bluecurve: It made a pleasant theme for Linux, and it made desktop environments consistent across the board. At least it tried.
- Bleeding Edge: When I hear that Open Office 2 is out, I'm not waiting 3 years to actually get it. I want the benefits of updated technology now.
- Packaging: I can compile just as good as the next CS guy, but that's not what I use my computer for. I use my computer for productivity, and spending time compiling my own applications is wasteful.
- Redhat Standards: People make stuff for Fedora because Linux == Redhat for lots of business types. Just ask Oracle.
I jumped off the Fedora bandwagon for a couple of reasons:
- Too Bleeding Edge: Fedora started getting the rep of a distribution that threw together new packages with little-to-no testing, and had lots of bugs in there, without regard to stability.
- No Network Upgrading: Fedora Core 1 can't be upgraded to Fedora Core 1+n (n > 0) without running a cd-install. Oh and by the way, it comes with 4 (!!!!) cd's. I have a headless Core 1 server that is probably going to stay that way for a long long time, because I don't want to install over top, but I also don't want to lose my data (I run like 3 websites, and it took me forever to get samba working).
I jumped on the Ubuntu bandwagon for a couple of reasons:
- A Single Desktop Environment: Gnome is starting to get its act together with the HIG and doing good things to make the desktop usable. Being a usability guy, I want Gnome. The fact that they made a hard decision to go with one desktop environment shows that they are capable of making tough decisions for users. This also helps keep the CD count to 1. <see * below for rant>
- Debian Power, Ubuntu Usability: Debian says it can't accept packages if they don't compile under all 6 of their supported architectures. Ubuntu only supports 3, so it can take a lot of good software that Debian cannot. I'm on i686, and that's all I care about. If it does pass Debian's walls, then better for me!
- Good Defaults\Good Theme: Since it only has 1 desktop environment, it can easily maintain consistency with itself. I don't like the brown in "human," but it is easy enough to change to clearlooks. Also, on top of the snobbery that is Debian's stance on users (sorry) lies Ubuntu's respect for what users want. Making things easy for people is a worthy goal.
- Trendy: Being a lifelong trendwhore, I find that it's easy to run where the momentum is going. There is a big community growing behind Ubuntu (it is what we want -- stability first, then usability, but none more important than the other) and that means that there will be more support for it. That leads to my packaging point.
- Packaging: Being trendy helps people develop packages for Ubuntu, not just Redhat. For instance, PyMusique (iTunes clone) has packages for Ubuntu, packaged by their authors. Plus, I get all the other stuff that's built into Debian.
- Upgrading: 1 cd to download. Free CDs shipped to me. Network upgrades. Upgrades every 6 months, with support for a single version for 18 months.
- Stable Bleeding Edge: They take debian packages and test them and patch them so that they don't fall in the trap of Fedora. I am already using an Ubuntu package for Adobe Reader 7.
~Mike
* RANT *
Free Software is about Freedom, not choice. I don't know where this got mixed up. The software is free to the world to do what you want with it, and sure, you can fork here and reinvent the wheel there, but most of the time, it just hurts Free Software in the long run. Is it nice to be able to choose KDE or Gnome? Yes. But shouldn't one of them just get it right? (I know, "right" is subjective, but we can all agree that glittery flowing KDE tooltips is superfluous, right?) I believe in creating good software meant to help people. Computers aren't a trinket to me (even though they probably are for you, Ross). They are a tool. Free Software wasn't created to give you 30 choices for a text editor. Free Software was created to empower anyone to do whatever they want with the software that they have. Good defaults should be chosen; users should be thought of as customers, and not annoying idiots. The fact that Ubuntu "just works" is what puts it ahead of the rest for me. Free software should stop worrying about being Free--it already is. It should worry about being good.
Firefox is a good example. It has a user interface czar that went to school and learned usability and good user interface design. Firefox is Free, but a severely high percentage of the people that use it did not compile from source. What it gains by being Free is developers like me. In the event the Mozilla Foundation starts harvesting our credit card numbers, being Free allows people to avoid this developer lock-in. That's where the Free stops, and the software begins. Make a good product with the end users in mind. Endless configuration screens make for the perfect customized experience, but raise the bar for most everyone else, and that's just being elitist. Can't we just create good software like we would under a proprietary blanket, but open it to the world? Ubuntu's motto sums it up well: "Linux for Human Beings."
----------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with Subject: unsubscribe -----------------------------------------------------------------
