Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu is NOT a part of community

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    Learn to read, I said SUSE not openSUSE. Also, I'd like to see this proof for Ubuntu's non-free-ness.
    SUSE has never existed. It was SuSE. There is openSUSE, SLES, SLED all which are free (with the exception of cost for support).

    SLE btw is free to distribute, modify, etc etc as well and they even include it in SUSEStudio.
    Last edited by deanjo; 12-02-2009, 04:19 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      SUSE has never existed. It was SuSE.
      Oh yeah? Tell that to Novell then.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by next9 View Post
        "...REvolution R enhancements not installed. For improved performance and other extensions: apt-get install revolution-r..."

        That means OSS software in ubuntu is crippled to advertise competing third party commercial/proprietary software each time you run it!
        Bug report, status triaged, patch available. I'd suggest pinging for inclusion in lucid and, if possible, in karmic.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
          Bug report, status triaged, patch available. I'd suggest pinging for inclusion in lucid and, if possible, in karmic.
          Lucid has synced the Debian version 2.10.0-1 so I guess it is already fixed.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
            The distribution name is SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop so if you want to quibble about names your quibbling about a distro that never existed. Also if you consider the SLE offerings as "non-free" then you have to consider Cononical's offerings "non-free" as well as they also offer enterprise support.
            Last edited by deanjo; 12-02-2009, 07:37 PM.

            Comment


            • Well the SuSE things are a bit more "non-free" as you have to register to get updates from the official repository.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                Well the SuSE things are a bit more "non-free" as you have to register to get updates from the official repository.
                Which is to maintain support and backporting of security issues on older packages. 7 Years is a long time to expect someone to maintain all of that especially as linux is a continual state of progression.

                Comment


                • Other distros do not let the users pay for (security) updates, no matter how long they are provided. You still could get sell support for other things.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    Other distros do not let the users pay for (security) updates, no matter how long they are provided. You still could get sell support for other things.
                    You know sometimes these kind of threads are actually good for something. If in the feature I decide to switch to another distro because the direction Ubuntu is taking isn't to me liking it certainly will not be SuSE.

                    Thanks for the info!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      Other distros do not let the users pay for (security) updates, no matter how long they are provided. You still could get sell support for other things.
                      Redhat does the same thing to get official updates to RHEL. CentOS is built with that in mind and off of the SRPM's from RHEL (same could be done with SLE's SRPM's if desired). In fact RH even promotes the reason for "Subscription Features (general) - Product updates & upgrades."

                      Comment


                      • Maybe you got it wrong, openSuSE does not need that, but the enterprise variants. Just like when you compare Fedora to Red Hat which got it's free enterprise clone called CentOS. U does not support all packages in the same level anyway, so even LTS is restricted to a relatively small amount of packages - only those which are used by the server flavour will be supported the longest time. When you compare that to Debian you get at least free security updates for oldstable when a stable release is out. Combined time for stable + oldstable support it could be a really long time.

                        Comment


                        • For the moment I have no intend on switching distro anyway. I'll probably give Fedora a spin in VirtualBox.

                          Comment


                          • You may want to try this

                            curl -O http://kanotix.com/files/install-vbox-addons.sh
                            su -c "sh install-vbox-addons.sh"

                            that works even with fedora in live mode. Basically it was written for Kanotix and similar distros including *buntu. Purpose it that it allows mouse integration and nice res switching without need of a hd install. You could use snaphots with vbox too if you don't want to run it everytime.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                              I'll give you that automatic installation of media codecs is a great thing. It must be one of the most recurring questions among newcomers. Having said this, Kaffeine in OpenSuse does something similar, although I haven't tried it because I don't have admin rights to install rpm packages at work. Things like font rendering is another plus, although I don't see how it can be any different than Debian, which also includes the bytecode interpreter. Hardware working properly depends on the kernel (and on idiotic decisions of not including certain firmware, OK), the GUI apps to configure say, networking, aren't Ubuntu's exclusivity, apt is a Debian thing and I don't think it's any better than rpm nowadays...

                              But seriously, is this what makes the difference? Does this explain the difference in 'market share' Ubuntu has over other distros? According to those wikimedia stats, there are more Ubuntu users than the rest of the distros combined together, _surely_ it's not a font rendering issue(*).
                              Not just a font rendering issue. But things like that do help.

                              One very important thing to note:

                              SIMPLE THINGS SHOULD BE SIMPLE TO ACCOMPLISH

                              Before Ubuntu was released, there didn't seem to be as much emphasis on this.

                              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                              This is what I meant. What fiddly bits? I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't know what you are referring to. Also, I don't know what you understand by polished. For me, my tiling window manager with zero window decorations is the epitome of polished. Is this an aesthetic, and therefore subjective thing?
                              It's mostly being able to achieve a satisfying desktop experience by users who don't wish to pour over source code in order to work out how to get something enabled or working.

                              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                              But how? Gnome is Gnome in every distro. What is it so different? The point about the Ubuntu forums full of people having problems is a fair one. Somehow it doesn't turn out as easy as usually sold. My biggest qualm about Ubuntu is that it's not all that different to Fedora when it comes to add new stuff. I understand that there's a lot of enthusiasts that want to try the very latest software developments, kernel, X server, what have you. That leads the distribution to exactly the opposite direction that they claim it goes. It's nice that you don't have to e.g. use the command line to connect to your WPA wireless AP, but what advantage is that when later you have some major breakage because they add largely untested bits everywhere?
                              I don't know of any disto that's in a position to fix every flaw in every package. If Linux has broken software, that's not a distros fault. A distro is there to package a software suite to provide a digestable user experience for end users. Otherwise, why isn't everyone doing the Linux from scratch thing?

                              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                              What about adding desktop effects by default and thus breaking desktops with drivers that are not up to the task, what about the first round of KDE 4.0, or introducing a broken new audio layer, inclusion of Intel drivers in bad shape, premature transition to libata subsystem, a beta version of Firefox in a LTS...
                              KDE 4.0 was a preview. 4.1 was the release version. ANyone not wanting to go with 4.0 could've stayed with their current distro.

                              Also, compiz is almost always enabled where the drivers will support it, and it's pretty easy to disable.

                              Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                              My point is that either the distro aims at one thing or at the other. If it's a distribution for people wanting to try out new stuff--as it seems--then it's not the stable user friendly distro you say it is. Having the system downloading codecs for me is of no use if sound if screwed because of irresponsible decisions from the developers.

                              (*) I'm the only real life person I know who cares about font rendering.
                              I don't think any of that reflects the true nature of the situation. PulseAudio was initially no cure all, but it's pretty good now. I can find corner cases for all sound solutions that are unsatisfactory one way or another. For the most part it now just works.

                              They also don't "sail as close to the wind" as Fedora.

                              Comment


                              • Ubuntu is net positive for Linux as a whole, and there really is no argument with that. There are valid complaints about Ubuntu not doing more to integrate their huge community into other communities and share the popularity and focus in that way, but at the end of the day Ubuntu has come closer to producing a true competitor to Windows or any other similar OS than any other distribution to date. In order to do what Ubuntu has done up to this point, they have had to stand on the shoulders of giants while picking their battles going forward. The very fact that some complain Ubuntu isn't doing enough to help other projects shows that Ubuntu is in the position to possibly help those projects in a major way, and they have in both direct and indirect ways. Many distributions can't say the same thing, and not because they are necessarily inferior or hard to use, but they just don't have the full package of resources, community and polish that Ubuntu most definitely has for better or worse. And for better or worse, whether some of you like or not, Linux as a whole is better for it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X