Vote On A Distribution For Linux Benchmarking

[TheBlackCat]

1.) Unique low QA downstream patch(specially mesa)
2.) Unique Exclusive desktop environment(unity)
3.) Unique exclusive display server(Mir)
4.) Unique init system(upstart)
5.) Dash as bin/sh
6.) lowest code contributor in linux history
7.) many packages have very weird or broken defaults[samba4 for example which is perfectly fine in Debian]

and neither 2,3,4 do anything better than the community projects it tries to replace

1, 6, and 7 can't possibly be seen as having anything to do with whether something is gnu/linux. Even if you agree with them, all it would mean is it is a crappy distro.

For 2, there are enough desktop environments out there that I can't possible see how having another one can make you not gnu/linux

As others have pointed out, neither 4 nor 5 are unique to Ubuntu.

So that leaves only 3 as being remotely close to a reason anyone could even begin to argue is valid, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need a display server or protocol at all to be considered gnu/linux. If someone installs Ubuntu, then uninstalls all display-related stuff so there is nothing Mir related at all, does that magically turn it into gnu/linux?

[TheBlackCat]

Did you know that www.redhat.com doesn't mention linux on its main page either? And we all know that the about page where its mentioned twice in the about page, but doesn't count, because jrch2k8 told us so. But sssssshhhhhh, don't mention this inconvenient fact to jrch2k8 or it might disturb his little make-believe world he has buried his eyes behind.

True, but to be fair the About page on the Red Hat home page is much more prominently placed (first of 4 big pictures right below the main picture) than the one on the Ubuntu home page (a tiny, dark-gray-text-on-darker-gray-background link mixed in with more than a dozen identical-looking links that you need to scroll way down to even see). Plus Linux is mentioned at least once in most of the pop-up menus on the red hat home page, while on the ubuntu home page it isn't mentioned in any of them. A google site search of the red hate home page shows over 317.000 mentions of Linux, while a similar search shows only about 1.370 on the Ubuntu page.

So I don't think it means Ubuntu is not gnu/linux, but Red Hat certainly mentions Linux much more prominently and much more often than Ubuntu does.

[jrch2k8]

I love how there is now 5 people railing on jrch2k8. And he still won't give up, he just ignores anything that tangibly proves him wrong.

Hows main page vs about page for debian and redhat treat ya jrch2k8? Lol. Debian and Redhat must really piss you off because they don't mention linux on the front page.

debian is fine since debian have many kernels and in the front page says very big about 4 times "about debian"[is not in a corner in the footer] and redhat if you reach your mouse to products you will see "Redhat Entreprise Linux" + all the variations and every specific system version have a big fat banner that says "Redhat Enterprise Linux" for X system

in the case of fedora/opensuse/Arch/gentoo/sabayon is in the front page too btw

[jrch2k8]

well ubutroll have taken the time to distort the point through the posts, the guy i originally replied asked what made ubuntu different from any other gnu/Linux distros?[i understand it that way] i name certain points that are almost unique to ubuntu, i've never specifically written is not gnu/linux since the GNU core is still there[gcc/glibc/etc] and the kernel is Linux and i elaborated more on later posts.

try read to root post first since the ubutroll/fanbois can't provide technical reasons so they normally resort to this tactics to try to prove something, i guess?? or to pinpoint phrases to distort contents <-- well trolls usual behaviour

[GreatEmerald]

Saying that Ubuntu have several core pieces that differ is imho far from the truth, even if you as a user use Unity as the desktop environment it's using GTK+ (and is switching over to Qt in future releases), that said they have a few Unity specific API's that they are trying to push out to 3d part developers but I don't know if any one is actually using them besides when Canonical patches other software to use things like the notify bar.

Sure, most of the low-level things are still the common stack. But when you look at the whole picture, Ubuntu is the distribution that deviates the most from the general stack. That's why this poll happened to begin with ? to find out which distribution is closest to being generic for the forum readers, so that most of them would benefit from its benchmarks.

Upstart was once seen as _the_ replacement for init and i.e Red Hat used it in RHEL for some time but then Systemd came along and other distributions switched to it, unfortunatelt it seams that Ubuntu was too far integrated with Upstart by then (compared with Red Hat that didn't have a single Upstart converted init job last time I checked) but perhaps they will also switch to Systemd in the future, atleast that is my hope.

Yes, that's true. I don't expect Upstart to last that long on Ubuntu, either. Once Debian switches to systemd, Ubuntu probably won't have much of a reason to stay on Upstart. I'm sure OpenRC will last much longer.

If memory serves me right Unity came when Gnome jumped the shark completely with Gnome3 (which has improved by now but back then Gnome3 was horrible).

No, Unity was released before GNOME 3. But its development started after that of GNOME 3.

Also if memory serves my right Ubuntu had plans to use Wayland as default back in the 10.04 days but when the development of Wayland dragged on these plans where scrapped. Anyways this is not me defending Mir because I would much rather see Ubuntu switch to Wayland when everyone else switches but even if that don't happen it's not the end of the world as the anti-Ubuntu trolls make it out to be.

Yes, well that's what annoys me the most. Ubuntu itself is fine, it's not a bad distribution by any stretch. But the constant Canonical flops are what puts me off of it. They keep making statements and then retracting them. They created Unity which is extremely unportable. They added the Amazon lens without making it opt-in. They added an invasive donation page every time you try to download their ISOs. They created an exclusive Software Centre that explicitly doesn't work anywhere else. They created Mir and intend to use it on the desktop, despite the fact that it's detrimental and completely unnecessary. Everything they say today is marketing speak and often misleading. Given all of that, I simply have no more faith in Canonical. If they suddenly went away and left everything to the Ubuntu community, I'm sure things would pan out nicely for Ubuntu the distribution. But as it is, under management like that, I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to anyone, because how long will it take for Canonical to come up with another flop, another way to alienate people?

And they also influence the downstream of Ubuntu, too, with all this XMir situation (although downstream seems to realise that it's not the way to go and is not agreeing to yield; for now, anyway). So while Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu etc. are still very nice distributions, they are also on the same clock ? what will Canonical think of next that will make their lives more difficult than it has to be?

There is only two things common in a GNU/Linux distribution, #1 the Linux kernel and #2 the GNU userland (and often also glibc, but that is not always the case). Ubuntu have to my knowledge not made any attempt to change any of these.

It depends. Some say that for it to qualify, more than half the default software in bytes, not counting the kernel, should come from GNU projects. The truth is that there is no clear-cut definition of it.

And have people all of the sudden forgotten the wide veriety that is the software universe of FOSS? We have dozens of different webservers, hundreds of different libraries to handle XML or JSON and so on but all of the sudden a display server makes people behave like religous zealots? Do these people also piss on projects like E17 since it does not use GTK+ or Qt which for some reason is the-one-and-only-allowed-thing?

A display server is a big deal. It's right below the kernel in terms of core things for the desktop. In case of Unity, fine, let Ubuntu have it, all the programs work without it anyway (and the ones that don't are enhancements to Unity itself). In case of Mir, we have no such guarantee. Programs written for Mir directly will not work under Wayland, as it stands. Not to mention that Mir was wholly unnecessary to begin with.

Do they hate Lighttpd or nginx since Apache is the only blessed and common web server among the distributions (until some of them started to bring in lighttpd and nginx)? Are they burning the distributions that are trying to compile everything with LLVM when GCC is the defacto FOSS standard of all time??? And what about the distributions that replace glibc with uclibc (holy cow they replaced a big central part of GNU!!!).

They all have their niches. Apache is the big and bloated, but reliable one; lighttpd is the light, but less feature-complete; nginx is the fast one. They all have good reasons to exist, and all of them are not core to the desktop. LLVM has good debugging facilities and uses a newer, leaner codebase than GCC, so again it has a reason to exist. Plus, once again, it's not core to the desktop (a program compiled with either will usually work just as well). As for the ?Clibc distributions, nobody cares about them since they are not very popular to begin with. It would be much different if Ubuntu, Fedora, Deban etc. started using it ? I'm sure there would be quite a backlash in that regard as well.

[grenadecx]

well ubutroll have taken the time to distort the point through the posts, the guy i originally replied asked what made ubuntu different from any other gnu/Linux distros?[i understand it that way] i name certain points that are almost unique to ubuntu, i've never specifically written is not gnu/linux since the GNU core is still there[gcc/glibc/etc] and the kernel is Linux and i elaborated more on later posts.

try read to root post first since the ubutroll/fanbois can't provide technical reasons so they normally resort to this tactics to try to prove something, i guess?? or to pinpoint phrases to distort contents <-- well trolls usual behaviour

I asked in what way was it not GNU/Linux.

Seriously. Ubuntu is just as much GNU/Linux as Debian, Fedora or any other distro out there.
Let me ask you this, in what way is it not?

But yeah. I guess I'm just trolling.
Have a good day.

[ворот93]

Opensource drivers are much faster with Fedora than with Ubuntu, gesundheit!

Playing TuxKart only is not my cup of tea, thank you.

[Vim_User]

Actually since 4 of the options are Debian Sid or derivatives they do make the by far and away the largest vote getter with as of right now 243 out of 650 total votes.

Remember Ubuntu, Xubuntu and Mint are just pimped Debian. No different then the various spins of Fedora. https://spins.fedoraproject.org/

Fixed that for you.

[Maudit]

Makes me laugh that all these Canonical/Ubuntu fan-boys are confirmed to be what we just said: fan-boys.
Against the criticism, they can only talk about something else: "but redhat..., but opensuse..., but firefox os..., but chrome os..., but my cousin ...,", or carry out ridiculous and insignificant objections that have nothing to do with what is contested.

Canonical/Ubuntu, with MIR stands outside the scene of the GNU/Linux desktop.
Mir is not a toolkit, it is a core component of the system.
You can't use a software developed for MIR on Wayland. MIR is Canonical/Ubuntu-only.
You can use a software developed for Wayland on any distro: Canonical/Ubuntu excluded.

MIR is under the exclusive control of Canonical/Ubuntu, and was created only for this reason, there are no technical advantages.
MIR is not done for the Linux community, it's made for the Canonical private interests. Their CLA is enough to put a tombstone on this topic.
Nobody can be so stupid to not understand something so evident (apart from the ubuntu fan-boys, of course).

Can anyone here to say that the software developed in the future for Canonical/Ubuntu will run on the other major GNU/Linux distributions?
Obviously NO. This is the difference between Canonical/Ubuntu and all the others.

Canonical/Ubuntu is therefore a system incompatible with all other GNU/Linux distributions.
For that reason Canonical/Ubuntu can not represent them. Canonical/Ubuntu can represent only themself.

End of story.

[GreatEmerald]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Netbook_Edition

The netbook edition is not Unity, and shares no code with Unity.