Will The Catalyst Driver Work On Ubuntu 11.04 At Launch?

[blackiwid]

It may not be the distro for you, like Ubuntu definitely isnt the distro for me however dismissing it as crap is just tribalistic bull. its one of the best distros out there.

As for crappy default themes its amazing that after the years of embarrassment in which Ubuntu has attempted to make Linux look ugly to the world, now that after many many years, that Ubuntu has finally got itself a half decent theme that suddenly Ubuntu fanboys start slaging off other distros default themes. I like what Ubuntu's doing theme wise however no gnome based distro is the best looking distro out there. KDE even with boring unimaginative themes as it currently stands simply looks better.

But thats the point in ubuntu if you use it right you get no conflicts I cannot remember having one for several years, thats the point, so maybe the tools to solve conflicts are better in other distros but I dont need them because I become no conflicts. But ok thats subjectiv ^^

I dont want a theme which looks like the distro-advertisement green with cameleons or something like that. that sucks, and the fedora theme isnt much better. But it?s k if you like kde more than gnome that shows why we have such big differncial view of what is beauty its not worth to fight over such subjective stuff.

[Nevertime]

I dont want a theme which looks like the distro-advertisement green with cameleons or something like that.

UGk! Im sick of reading ignorant opinions online!!!! I'll have you know that chameleon is Geeko and hes the cutest most adorable linux distro mascot ever!!!! How can you not love him!!! Enough! I'm sick of listening to this!!!!

[next9]

really crappy default themes

You have mentioned themes so many times, are you able to customize you Linux theme yourself? 10 persons would like 10 different themes. I do not think, ubuntu themes are better. From my point of view, they are really ugly. But who cares.

But lets say fedora is good, the default gnome-desktop sucks. you have to modify it hard to get a usable desktop here is ubuntu better. Ok that maybe only matters me but I dont have a big reason to change to it.

Well, last time I checked, Shuttleworth essentially redesigned GNOME in Ubuntu, no matter what Ubuntu users thought. I do not want to have my buttons on the left! For GNOME 3, they are even planning to avoid some GNOME components completelly.

I would rather change to debian because I like this uncompromisingly free software viewpoint (GNU/Debian).

Dream on. Debian was highly affected and indoctrinated by Canonical/Ubuntu persons. They push controversial mono into default installations, while it is highly debatable, if the Microsoft community promise patent licence is compliant with GPL/LGPL (licence under Mono is distributed). Fedora is far way more libre, refusing proprietary stuff and controversial things like mono.

And that you have dependency isues, thats then maybe with debian/unstable but not with ubuntu or debian stable, and if that happens it can be fixed if there is a solution (the librarys who a package depends on exists). lets say it that way I don?t will argue if rpm or deb format is better thats opinion question, but the package quality of debian is supperp against all rpm-distros.

Well, this argument is highly debatable. I agree Debian guys are great, and they create really good and huge set of packages, but I am not sure about "best" quality. Do you remember OpenSSL disaster? Debian guys patched this library and created one of the greatest vulnerabilities in Debian history. And not only Debian. All those distributions parasiting on Debian repositories (like Ubuntu) were affected too, altogether. Non of the RPM distributions were affected. Not because they have better packaging quality. Just because RPM distributions usually make their packages on their own, and do not steal them somewhere else. As you can see, It makes them less vulnerable...

You have to get 1000 3rd party repositorys and you always get less package choices.

Well, it depends on you demands. In Ubuntu or Debian, you have one set of packages. They are organized in single repository, where you find everything what you want. But imagine that month ofter Ubuntu release, shiny new Openoffice, Firefox or whatever else new emerge. Do you want them? As an Ubuntu user, shut up and be happy with you obsolete version. Wait for the next Ubuntu release. Yes, there are some PPA repositories, but not official, with highly debatable quality, marked for usage on your own risk.

In Opensuse, you have OBS (Opensuse Build service). Like in Ubuntu, there are hundreds of personal repositories with debatable quality. But unlike in Ubuntu, OBS contains huge amount of OFFICIAL repositories for important projects. And It is even better. While Ubuntu PPA usually supports latest Ubuntu version, Opensuse OBS supports 4 Opensuse versions simultaneously. Thus I can use 2 years old rockstable version of Opensuse with latest shiny new programs and software, while your one moth old Ubuntu version use obsolete waiting 5 month for Ubuntu release to update package set.

PS.: OBS support many distributions, including Fedora, Debian and Ubuntu. But afaik only Fedora has some noticeable amount of packages there.

[mugginz]

But imagine that month ofter Ubuntu release, shiny new Openoffice, Firefox or whatever else new emerge. Do you want them? As an Ubuntu user, shut up and be happy with you obsolete version. Wait for the next Ubuntu release. Yes, there are some PPA repositories, but not official, with highly debatable quality, marked for usage on your own risk.

This doesn't reflect my experience at all with Ubuntu.

If there's to be pre-built binaries at all from the author, Ubuntu is more likely than not to be in the list of provided for distros. In fact that's one of Ubuntu's strengths in my book.

Also, your slur on PPA's that they're of highly debatable quality. Do you think that of all "unofficial" packages no matter what the distro, or is it just the Ubuntu orientates non-official packages that are crap?

[next9]

This doesn't reflect my experience at all with Ubuntu.

If there's to be pre-built binaries at all from the author, Ubuntu is more likely than not to be in the list of provided for distros. In fact that's one of Ubuntu's strengths in my book.

Really? How many SW authors release pre-built binaries for variety of distros? Almost none. And those who does are usually small unimportant projects, lets say some audioplayer etc... 99% of software is available only as source code and is packaged by your distribution maintainers.

So, lets have a look at this more closely. For example somebody use Opensuse 11.1. This version was released at the end of 2008. He is satisfied with this system, it is stable, bug-free, he just want to install latest KDE 4.5. With Opensuse it is easy taks. There is official KDE 4.5 repository for 11.1, so as tens and hundreds of other repositories for latest Firefox, Openoffice, Wine, etc...

What about Ubuntu? Ubuntu 8.10 or 9.04 are somewhere in the dust. Nobody cares about those releases, Canonical even refuse to correct non-critical bugs (those that do not affect security) both in standrd an LTS versions. I doubt, there is some KDE 4.5 repo for Ubuntu 8.10, 9.04, 9.10. I doubt there si even some KDE 4.5 repo for Ubuntu 10.4. Whether something exist, it is some unofficial PPA for latest 10.10 and that is all. Same applies for Openoffice, Firefox, Wine, etc... If there is no third party update repository, there is usually no repository at all.

Trying to claim that Ubuntu can match Opensuse with SW support is just a bad joke.

Also, your slur on PPA's that they're of highly debatable quality. Do you think that of all "unofficial" packages no matter what the distro, or is it just the Ubuntu orientates non-official packages that are crap?

Third party packages are always of debatable quality. Some of them are good, some of them are worse. Some of the completely break the system. No matter what distribution you use. That is why prefer official distribution repositories (for general purpose usage).

[deanjo]

So, lets have a look at this more closely. For example somebody use Opensuse 11.1. This version was released at the end of 2008. He is satisfied with this system, it is stable, bug-free, he just want to install latest KDE 4.5. With Opensuse it is easy taks. There is official KDE 4.5 repository for 11.1, so as tens and hundreds of other repositories for latest Firefox, Openoffice, Wine, etc...

That has a lot to do with opensuse's build service (which btw can build packages for other distros as well).

[blackiwid]

the point is how good is the distro (without 3rd party stuff) and how long are the release-cycles or is it rolling releases like in gentoo. Another question is how much free is it (what is maybe hard to messure ^^).

If you like gnome, and are happy with the ubuntu theme, I think there are not much that speaks against ubuntu. But I do note that they make to much compromisses in freedom I do not like. Firefox instead of Iceweasel, the integration of this propriatary ubuntu-one thing etc. So I maybe switch to something other, but that would not be fedora or opensuse ^^. Is opensuse even alive? I did not like there long time (now its free?) yast, and even it was free it was super-slow. I like distros that use the gnu-tools. I did like some tools of gentoo and also that they did virtualy everything installable from there distribution, I dont manuelly install sources if I can get around which is most of the time.

Maybe I switch to arch some time, but last time I checked it was behind ubuntu it uses a old school initrd thing. I did not get gnome-shell running (at that time) because I guess the radeon driver was not ready or something like that. I got not the feeling that I would gain more with using it. And to not compile each shit is also not that bad ok in arch there are also binary packages but thats another point

yes I do not want to setup each app seperatly I wand a good default desktop with a somewhat good default theme. I have not time and the desire to invest some hours to get a halvway good feeling other the desktop.
I like also the 6 month update cycle even if its sometimes to long for me ubuntu alpha+beta works also often very good with less problems so I can switch there.

I am not a big ubuntu fan, but I dont found something better that meets my needs better I am really willing to switch to another distro (because of the freedom issues) but I am not so shure about where to go to

[mugginz]

Really? How many SW authors release pre-built binaries for variety of distros? Almost none. And those who does are usually small unimportant projects, lets say some audioplayer etc... 99% of software is available only as source code and is packaged by your distribution maintainers.

From your earlier post you suggest the following is in store for an Ubuntu user.

Well, it depends on you demands. In Ubuntu or Debian, you have one set of packages. They are organized in single repository, where you find everything what you want. But imagine that month ofter Ubuntu release, shiny new Openoffice, Firefox or whatever else new emerge. Do you want them? As an Ubuntu user, shut up and be happy with you obsolete version. Wait for the next Ubuntu release.

But as an Ubuntu user I've never felt as though I'm left out in the cold in this respect. When I last was running Fedora and wanted to install Boxee I had to build from source but for Ubuntu my life was made much easier. To suggest that Ubuntu is singled out as a distro that should be not built for seems not only proposterous, but it doesn't gel with my experience at all.

When I go to skype.com, on offer is a binary for Ubuntu.
When I go to download Google Chrome from it website I'm yet again offered a binary for Ubuntu.
When visiting mozilla.com I can download a binary that'll run on Ubuntu.
The same goes for blender.org

When visiting kdenlive.org I'm told that if I want to run it on my Ubuntu box:

"The recommended version of Kdenlive is 0.7.8 and MLT 0.5.10

All the following packages have been built with the official ffmpeg version of each Ubuntu release."

And then offered the following info

go to System Menu > Software Sources > Third-Party Software (9.10) or
System Menu > Administration > Software Sources > Other Software (10.04, 10.10);
click add and paste this line in:
ppa:sunab/kdenlive-release
close software source and click reload.

Ah. There's one of those pesky PPA's you talk of. Although the official website of the program is telling me to use one to install it, it must be crap. It's not a .deb, its a PPA!

When I look at MythTV, there's

MythTV is available through apt. See the Ubuntu Community Documentation for more information. Daily snapshots for both the stable release (-fixes) and development (-trunk) are available via the Mythbuntu Autobuilds for current releases of Ubuntu & Mythbuntu.

For Firefox there's a binary that'll run on an Ubuntu box. Same for OpenOffice.


So when I as an Ubuntu user want to be running up to date software, I've found with Ubuntu more often that with other distros a way to get pre-built access to the software.

So, lets have a look at this more closely. For example somebody use Opensuse 11.1. This version was released at the end of 2008. He is satisfied with this system, it is stable, bug-free, he just want to install latest KDE 4.5. With Opensuse it is easy taks. There is official KDE 4.5 repository for 11.1, so as tens and hundreds of other repositories for latest Firefox, Openoffice, Wine, etc...

What about Ubuntu? Ubuntu 8.10 or 9.04 are somewhere in the dust. Nobody cares about those releases, Canonical even refuse to correct non-critical bugs (those that do not affect security) both in standrd an LTS versions. I doubt, there is some KDE 4.5 repo for Ubuntu 8.10, 9.04, 9.10. I doubt there si even some KDE 4.5 repo for Ubuntu 10.4. Whether something exist, it is some unofficial PPA for latest 10.10 and that is all. Same applies for Openoffice, Firefox, Wine, etc... If there is no third party update repository, there is usually no repository at all.

So when I want to run KDE 4.5 on an Ubuntu 10.04 box and I use a PPA to do it, I'm somehow worse off than relying on the Build Service? Well here's a perfect opportunity for you to sell a few on OpenSuse.

In what way does the build service make it impossible for someone to make available 'tainted' builds. And How much easier is it to do this with the PPA setup?

Trying to claim that Ubuntu can match Opensuse with SW support is just a bad joke.

Tell me what programs I'm unable to run as an Ubuntu user?

Third party packages are always of debatable quality.

Always. Really.

Some of them are good, some of them are worse.

But how can some of them be good when you say PPA's are always of debatable quality?

Some of the completely break the system. No matter what distribution you use. That is why prefer official distribution repositories (for general purpose usage).

If I run OpenSuse I'll never be left wanting for pre-built software eh.

[deanjo]

Is opensuse even alive? I did not like there long time (now its free?) yast, and even it was free it was super-slow.

Very alive and doing very well. YaST has always been "free" in openSUSE. The days of YaST being proprietary are long gone (7 years now and that was in SuSE, not openSUSE). Looks like your perceptions of openSUSE are based on some VERY VERY VERY old observations on SuSE that reflect nothing on the more current releases of openSUSE.

[blackiwid]

I dont like to use a distro thats a subdistro of a comercial one, where the company behind it, have different priority. Sorry, thats also a point on fedora.

I dont like even the idea behind yast, its the oposite of unix philosophie. you can maybe additionaly have such tool that does pretty much all, but it must be underlaying tools that have priority.

I didn?t like suse ever because it did suck (in my opinion) while it had much very excited users in germany in the past. So if I hear today that somebody is excited about it, when at this time it was nothing behind it why should be something behind today?

Why is opensuse better than ubuntu?