Suggest Ubuntu Alternative

[bridgman]

Is there a "non sequitur" button ?

[blackiwid]

Well, I don?t think (IMHO) these "evils" are really "evils", they are more "badboy"s.
1. I think you mean Amazon search deal, thats true, although they explicitly placed "Legal Advice" button right into Dash. One can?t miss it when opening Dash for first time. Personally, I think its lame and useless, because I buy from Amazon from time-to-time anyway, so why can?t Amazon just track User Agent = Ubuntu and "analyse my behavior" or whatever that stone-age theory was.

2. I don?t use any music stores, due to "music store"=DRM. DRM = loss of music in a blink of an eye. Look at ms zune music shop, or whatever that thing was called. So, IMHO, that "addition" was useless.

3. I think launchpad is open to everyone, but I give you +1 because proactive handling is better than passive.

4. I think its their option what they do with their money. Thats not evil in slightest. For example, consider companies such as mikrotik, that blindly build upon Linux, but everything is proprietary. That includes "copyprotection", license keys etc garbage.

5. Yet they released them later as open software. I don?t think its neccessary evil, unless it becomes a rule, see 4 of my opinion.

6. Yeah, thats because they make money with that, that is surely +1 to your point. They could have done that a lot better like Red Hat (no puns, no sarcasm).

....

11. +1, one of the reasons I migrate from Ubuntu. I personally experienced how inefficient and buggy, within own specifications, Unity is. A LOT of what is installed is straight USELESS, a LOT is simply wrong, and MUCH is missing.

12. I rely on opensource drivers, they are usable now, so that doesn?t touch me.

13. No from me here. First, Mozilla protects "Firefox" brand. Builds that are not official, can?t be called "Firefox". Because when stuff starts breaking, they don?t want to associate with that. Thats what I fully understand. Debian wanted to modify Firefox, since I fully understand the reason for renaming, I think its right choice for both Mozilla and Debian. So, there should be Firefox and Iceweasel present, regardless who is considered default. People should decide.

1. actually point 1 is the most important one, adding spyware to the default installation is the biggest disrespekt to the users, yes it did get critisised so everybody knows that now, but not everybody reads all the linux news all the time. and maybe its no big deal for you but I dont use facebook, I try to get less dependend from google, and specialy hate amazon, we had a big scandal in germany about them, they did basicly have a nazi security to watch the workers from other countries. I dont trust them with data from me.

2. again its more about their mindset, yes yes with ppas and stuff you can make every distro like what you want. but the gap between upstream and ubuntu gets bigger and bigger, today I have to manage a gnome-ppa, tomorow I need a wayland ppa and so on. The work needed to get from a standard installation to what you want gets bigger and bigger, so why not install as example a fedora with a nice clean gnome-shell installed without spyware and stuff.

3. what do you mean its open to... if you use it on their servers? yes, ubuntu is here like our bio/organic sign on our food, its the minimal thats allowed not 1% more. So they want to sell their product or have other advantages with using opensource because they dont have to develop everything by them selv, but its only a tool they dont give a shit about freedom of users or something like that.

4. you can call it bad boy or evil, I dont see the big difference with that. of course people care different about freedom or opoeness or stuff like that, I care much, not that much that I use ututo over lets say fedora or arch linux, I am willing to make some compromises, but ubuntu goes way to far from me.
It wasnt that I was just till 6 months ago extremly happy with ubuntu like I told with the firefox example their did stuff happen, which made me wanna migrate to a other distribution earlier, but the alternatives back then werent even that good that days, and I wanted not take the pain of a migration.
So I stayed on ubuntu because of lazyness, not because I liked what happend. But they always make it even worse and worse and wordse.

5. again it shows their mindset, its not neccessary evil, but it fits in the picture of the other stuff, maybe its reasonable for a company, but if thats true maybe using a community only driven distro like arch linux is the better choice. (yes of course some 3rd party companies maybe help their too, but they have no power on that distro)

12. me not too, but its a bit like microsofts taktics with their own office format, so you want propriatary drivers you nearly have to use ubuntu. or you get less fast stuff, I dont like that.
They try to kill the other distros basicly with such moves. they try to make ubuntu the propriatary standard under linux. And if they have 99% of the users, all the company will only support ubuntu in the long run, the arm companies will see ok we release a blob and we support perfectly ubuntu (so linux) with that.
The much hate nvidia get last 5 years or so for their propriatary solutions did make change them, now with the arm they changed their poliscy they help to develop a free tegra driver.
And opensource drivers get faster better and better, without much regressions, they prove that they are the better solution.

13. http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?ke...ng&section=all where is your choice here?

[brosis]

Ubuntus list of evilness is just to long now.

the worst thing they did was:

1. spyware in default installation/config
then
2. replacing the music store in that music app and steal basicly money from them (yes its legal what they done their but not moralic)
3. dont send patches to upstream
4. inhouse developments that get released last day so the other distros can only integrate it later
5. they used nonfree lisenses on several stuff like their launchpad,
6. and still ubuntu-one server part is proprietary
7. their communications were horrific, letting other people work on stuff and 2 months for release they say, we desided to not use that stuff you exclusivly developed for ubuntu, of that poor qt-guy.
8. they flamed against wayland with lies or at least not the truth
9. they do their MIR thing.
10. even if you think that moralicly thats all ok, but having 20 own solutions that only use ubuntu will become a disaster for them, if no other distributions use that, its less likely that security holes get fixed or found.
11. unity, this move in that timeframe even fragmented the gnome-project even more, and that even with a unready solution, unity was 1-2 years buggier and slower than gnome-shell, they could have switched when they at least would have been at the same level, now they jump around between gtk, qt, compiz and back and forth they cant desite what they want.
12. exclusiv ubuntu amd or nvidia drivers, thats more of their we fight other distro thing, not thinking of a community
13. firefox thing, they could have switched to iceweasal they desided to go the more unfree route here
14. "we require CLA everywhere", ie can turn all into closed source sure people will search for alternative.

its just to much, they seperate themselves. I switch to arch linux and my relatives will switch to fedora, because they deliver maybe what made ubuntu a great distribution - the suckiness even from the beginning, a gnome-distribution.
now they have something qt-gnomeish bastard thing with android drivers. half qt, half gnome half android.

Well, I don?t think (IMHO) these "evils" are really "evils", they are more "badboy"s.
1. I think you mean Amazon search deal, thats true, although they explicitly placed "Legal Advice" button right into Dash. One can?t miss it when opening Dash for first time. Personally, I think its lame and useless, because I buy from Amazon from time-to-time anyway, so why can?t Amazon just track User Agent = Ubuntu and "analyse my behavior" or whatever that stone-age theory was.

2. I don?t use any music stores, due to "music store"=DRM. DRM = loss of music in a blink of an eye. Look at ms zune music shop, or whatever that thing was called. So, IMHO, that "addition" was useless.

3. I think launchpad is open to everyone, but I give you +1 because proactive handling is better than passive.

4. I think its their option what they do with their money. Thats not evil in slightest. For example, consider companies such as mikrotik, that blindly build upon Linux, but everything is proprietary. That includes "copyprotection", license keys etc garbage.

5. Yet they released them later as open software. I don?t think its neccessary evil, unless it becomes a rule, see 4 of my opinion.

6. Yeah, thats because they make money with that, that is surely +1 to your point. They could have done that a lot better like Red Hat (no puns, no sarcasm).

7. +1

8. & 9. They just wanted full control over vital part for their policy to run on several platforms, that?s understandable, although very stupid. Should have forked if necessary. And they lied about reasons. Thats 2x +1

10. +1

11. +1, one of the reasons I migrate from Ubuntu. I personally experienced how inefficient and buggy, within own specifications, Unity is. A LOT of what is installed is straight USELESS, a LOT is simply wrong, and MUCH is missing.

12. I rely on opensource drivers, they are usable now, so that doesn?t touch me.

13. No from me here. First, Mozilla protects "Firefox" brand. Builds that are not official, can?t be called "Firefox". Because when stuff starts breaking, they don?t want to associate with that. Thats what I fully understand. Debian wanted to modify Firefox, since I fully understand the reason for renaming, I think its right choice for both Mozilla and Debian. So, there should be Firefox and Iceweasel present, regardless who is considered default. People should decide.

14. +1 to that.

[brosis]

Why do you care about those points? Just politics?

Yes, politics. Remember USA bombarding Iraq? Bush lied and A LOT of people die. That was because of just politics.

I don?t want for Canonical to easily close everything down, by changing the license from GPL to EULA, using lies as arguments. CLA allows that. Point me to equivalent of KDE Free Qt Foundation within Ubuntu please, that has a legally binding agreement.

I would like add somethings.

Do you know that the deal between novell and ms, forced ms to sell Linux ?

SUSE comes from openSUSE, not the other way round.

So I could argue that openSUSE, has nothing to do with that deal.

I know that MS purchased Novell, by moneytransfer via CPTN - Attachmate with the single goal to gather all Novell patents, which were later used to attack Android and Linux today.

yes its the half truth, for apt that is maybe right, but not for aptitude. it gives you different solutions too.
in theory you could also pin packages in apt, to not use the newest packages from oem or so, but I never got that working when I tried it ^^

No, I don?t think APT can do that. For example:
One adds disk monitoring applet to XFCE. Possible file change monitors are gamin and fam. Another:
One adds KDE and Phonon, the backends possible are Gstreamer and Xine. Etc.
To my knowledge, APT will blindly offer for install one of them.

One can of course, let APT resolve the packages, but then immediately manually go to equivalents and choose to install them.
Due to that they are not compatible to be used at same time (at least gamin/fam), APT/Synaptic will smartly remove marking from one and put them on another.

In OpenSUSE/Mageia, zypper will explicitly offer a choice between them. Thats the difference.

[Alex Sarmiento]

yes its the half truth, for apt that is maybe right, but not for aptitude. it gives you different solutions too.
in theory you could also pin packages in apt, to not use the newest packages from oem or so, but I never got that working when I tried it ^^




Ubuntus list of evilness is just to long now.

the worst thing they did was:

1. spyware in default installation/config
then
2. replacing the music store in that music app and steal basicly money from them (yes its legal what they done their but not moralic)
3. dont send patches to upstream
4. inhouse developments that get released last day so the other distros can only integrate it later
5. they used nonfree lisenses on several stuff like their launchpad,
6. and still ubuntu-one server part is proprietary
7. their communications were horrific, letting other people work on stuff and 2 months for release they say, we desided to not use that stuff you exclusivly developed for ubuntu, of that poor qt-guy.
8. they flamed against wayland with lies or at least not the truth
9. they do their MIR thing.
10. even if you think that moralicly thats all ok, but having 20 own solutions that only use ubuntu will become a disaster for them, if no other distributions use that, its less likely that security holes get fixed or found.
11. unity, this move in that timeframe even fragmented the gnome-project even more, and that even with a unready solution, unity was 1-2 years buggier and slower than gnome-shell, they could have switched when they at least would have been at the same level, now they jump around between gtk, qt, compiz and back and forth they cant desite what they want.
12. exclusiv ubuntu amd or nvidia drivers, thats more of their we fight other distro thing, not thinking of a community
13. firefox thing, they could have switched to iceweasal they desided to go the more unfree route here
14. "we require CLA everywhere", ie can turn all into closed source sure people will search for alternative.


its just to much, they seperate themselves. I switch to arch linux and my relatives will switch to fedora, because they deliver maybe what made ubuntu a great distribution - the suckiness even from the beginning, a gnome-distribution.

now they have something qt-gnomeish bastard thing with android drivers. half qt, half gnome half android.

[Gps4l]

So in the end, the winner is: OpenSUSE

But, I still want Ubuntu or Mageia to succeed, or become on pair. Because, as we all know, Novell was corrupted by microsoft and is held in prison by its daughter-division Attachmate.

I would like add somethings.

Do you know that the deal between novell and ms, forced ms to sell Linux ?

SUSE comes from openSUSE, not the other way round.

So I could argue that openSUSE, has nothing to do with that deal.

[blackiwid]

Regarding zypper vs apt, its not so much in the command syntax as the dependency resolution and vendor lock features. Zypper has an advanced SATsolver which is far better at managing dependencies than apt. If there are dependency issues zypper will always present you with multiple intelligent choices and one of them is always a good one apt just cries and tells you things are broken.

yes its the half truth, for apt that is maybe right, but not for aptitude. it gives you different solutions too.
in theory you could also pin packages in apt, to not use the newest packages from oem or so, but I never got that working when I tried it ^^

Why do you care about those points? Just politics?

Ubuntus list of evilness is just to long now.

the worst thing they did was:

1. spyware in default installation/config
then
2. replacing the music store in that music app and steal basicly money from them (yes its legal what they done their but not moralic)
3. dont send patches to upstream
4. inhouse developments that get released last day so the other distros can only integrate it later
5. they used nonfree lisenses on several stuff like their launchpad,
6. and still ubuntu-one server part is proprietary
7. their communications were horrific, letting other people work on stuff and 2 months for release they say, we desided to not use that stuff you exclusivly developed for ubuntu, of that poor qt-guy.
8. they flamed against wayland with lies or at least not the truth
9. they do their MIR thing.
10. even if you think that moralicly thats all ok, but having 20 own solutions that only use ubuntu will become a disaster for them, if no other distributions use that, its less likely that security holes get fixed or found.
11. unity, this move in that timeframe even fragmented the gnome-project even more, and that even with a unready solution, unity was 1-2 years buggier and slower than gnome-shell, they could have switched when they at least would have been at the same level, now they jump around between gtk, qt, compiz and back and forth they cant desite what they want.
12. exclusiv ubuntu amd or nvidia drivers, thats more of their we fight other distro thing, not thinking of a community
13. firefox thing, they could have switched to iceweasal they desided to go the more unfree route here
14. "we require CLA everywhere", ie can turn all into closed source sure people will search for alternative.


its just to much, they seperate themselves. I switch to arch linux and my relatives will switch to fedora, because they deliver maybe what made ubuntu a great distribution - the suckiness even from the beginning, a gnome-distribution.

now they have something qt-gnomeish bastard thing with android drivers. half qt, half gnome half android.

[Alex Sarmiento]

Title.

The distribution should be "consumer" friendly, in installation and in service; and have some sort of "market place" (ie GUI frontend to big local package repo, or application manager etc).

I have recently tried Unity and polished unity looks pretty good.

But with current Ubuntu policy of
1) "we want to control everything", ie "Mir" case
2) "we require CLA everywhere", ie can turn all into closed source
sure people will search for alternative.

Please suggest and explain why(strong points, weak points).

Why do you care about those points? Just politics?

[bwat47]

No, no, you misunderstood, but later sorted everything exactly the way I was trying to present...

Rpm vs Deb: I see two technologies that are actually of same high quality. This is why I say, that I dislike RPM. I started with DEB and I know them very good, and RPM is basically mirror side of DEB, so... I don? t understand why we keep two houses, when we occupy just one... a tiny line of trolling here. Only this, nothing more.

I also didn?t see any advantage of zypper, compared to apt. You can take this as a compliment, because both are very fast and efficient.

Regarding Yast2, what amazed me is its ability to correctly detect changes in manually modified files and -- automatically take decision if that configuration actually makes sense.

Well, RPM is actually the LSB standard and came before DEB, debian is the one that decided to do their own thing I think what it comes down to is RPM used to actually suck back in the day, and thats why deb and its tools become popular, but these days both are quite good, so neither side will ever want to "give in" and use the other lol.

Regarding zypper vs apt, its not so much in the command syntax as the dependency resolution and vendor lock features. Zypper has an advanced SATsolver which is far better at managing dependencies than apt. If there are dependency issues zypper will always present you with multiple intelligent choices and one of them is always a good one apt just cries and tells you things are broken.

And the vendor lock feature is great. lets compare how a third party repo behaves (or adding any additional repo, really) with apt vs zypper. with apt if you add a third party repos with some of the same packages installed on your system, no matter what it will always try to use the third party packages if they are newer. This is fine if thats what you wan't but thats not always the case. With zypper each package has a "vendor", so by default the packages vendor is one of the default official repos. So if you add a third party repo that has a bunch of updated packages available but really just wanted to install a single application from it you can do that! The third party repo will NOT update your system packages unless you explicitly do a vendor change on all those packages. Managing multiple third party repos in zypper is so much better than with apt, these are the two reason I love zypper. Zypper + opensuse's build service is a very awesome combination.

I also do think zypper has nicer looking commandline output too, but thats a more minor thing.

[brosis]

Sorry if I am being nitpicky, but it always gets me going when people say silly things like "I don't like RPM" and then go and compare RPM to some random GUI application like synaptic . rpm != synaptic

RPM is only equiavalent to deb, rpm vs deb REALLY doesn't matter much, they are both pretty much just glorified tarballs; what's really important is the tools used to manage them: the under the hood command line package management tools, which is zypper and apt-get/aptitude. IMO zypper is superior to apt, zypper's SATsolver dependency resolution and handling of multiple repos/vendor changes are better than any other package manager I've seen (zypper can handle stuff like upgrading to another major distrobution version much better than apt because of its superior dependency resolution and ability to do vendor changes). I <3 zypper. Next we have the GUI tools, the yast software manager and synaptic. I agree there, I do like synaptic better than yast, but I usually use zypper anyway.

Opensuse has a great page here regarding myths and misconceptions about RPM: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:RPM_sucks

No, no, you misunderstood, but later sorted everything exactly the way I was trying to present...

Rpm vs Deb: I see two technologies that are actually of same high quality. This is why I say, that I dislike RPM. I started with DEB and I know them very good, and RPM is basically mirror side of DEB, so... I don? t understand why we keep two houses, when we occupy just one... a tiny line of trolling here. Only this, nothing more.

I also didn?t see any advantage of zypper, compared to apt. You can take this as a compliment, because both are very fast and efficient.

Regarding Yast2, what amazed me is its ability to correctly detect changes in manually modified files and -- automatically take decision if that configuration actually makes sense.