Ubuntu is NOT a part of community

[Riotta]

To be honest I'm a Ubuntu user myself and I really don't believe those cheesy Canonical slogans, african ideology blah, blah and all this marketing bullshit. But I think Ubuntu is what it is, Linux for Human Beings. For people who want to have Free system which just works. Of course that there are better distros and communities like for example Arch Linux which are in my opinion the essence of Linux. Linux distributions which contribute more to the Open Source, but what it means to the end user, in the end everybody just want it work on their boxes, this may sound selfish but this is all about. Maybe Canonical is not mature enough yet to see some aspects of getting from open source and giving it back, but they are in Linux world not as long as RedHat, Novell or Mandriva. I think everybody need to learn their lessons. We can love or hate Canonical but they are a big landmark in the Linux world, cause they achieved something which wasn't achieved by other commercial Linux projects, market attention. Redhat and Mandriva have stated long time ago that you can't make money on Open Source that's why they made Fedora and OpenSuse as a playground for their commercial distros. Shuttleworth maybe completely insane but he actually believe that it's possible to make money with Linux, I personally want to see it happen.

[BlackStar]

[sprouting bullshit on distrowatch.com being partial to Ubuntu users, while conveniently ignoring counter.li.org]

[more bullshit]

... your "the best linux distro survey" ...

[even more bullshit]

What, nothing on counter.li.org? I had high hopes for you, young grasshoper, but you need to practice your trolling skills more. Just don't try too hard and have an aneurism, we wouldn't want that.

You should also have that voices in your head looked at, you know the ones talking about "best linux distro surveys" and the like. Preferably right away, you are slowly losing touch with reality.

[next9]

What, nothing on counter.li.org?

I have never heard of that site. That's why I did not comment. But as I can see, you have to visit and vote. That site is for people who want to vote.

Same objection here. Same stupid bullshit.

[dust]

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm

Wikimedia Visitor Log Analysis Report - Operating Systems
Daily averages, based on sample period: 1 Sep 2009 - 30 Sep 2009
This analysis is based on a 1:1000 sampled server log (squids) ⇒ all counts x 1000.

In order of popularity
Operating System Requests Percentage
Windows 3,743,852 88.68%
Mac 272,173 6.45%
Linux 63,773 1.51%
iPhone 38,769 0.92%

Breakdown per platform for Mac and Linux
Mac Intel 230,774 5.47%
Mac PowerPC 41,137 0.97%
Linux Ubuntu 28,300 0.67%
Linux Debian 4,397 0.10%
Linux Fedora 3,334 0.08%
Linux SUSE 2,750 0.07%
Linux Android 1,269 0.03%
Linux Gentoo 994 0.02%
Linux Red Hat 642 0.02%
Linux CentOS 463 0.01%
Linux Motor 42 0.00%

just as a suggestion...

[BlackStar]

http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia...ingSystems.htm


just as a suggestion...

More iPhones accessing wikimedia than Ubuntu machines, whistles!

That's, uh, eye opening. Goes to show why Linux is all but a dead end to 99.999% of commercial vendors (mainstream games and the like)...

[bridgman]

For what it's worth, the Linux distro breakdown in dust's post roughly matches what we see in terms of consumer (ie non-commercial) user feedback.

I have to admit I don't fully understand the criticism of Ubuntu here. Is the complaint that they are making lots of kernel and driver fixes but not pushing them upstream, or just that they are focusing their work on "useability" efforts which are somewhat distro-specific and wouldn't normally touch kernel or driver code anyways ?

Put differently, is the belief that they are hoarding fixes, or just "that Shuttleworth guy is rich, he could fund more kernel development out of his own pocket" ?

[disi]

More iPhones accessing wikimedia than Ubuntu machines, whistles!

That's, uh, eye opening. Goes to show why Linux is all but a dead end to 99.999% of commercial vendors (mainstream games and the like)...

If I look at myself, all desktops in the company are Windows, that's 8 hours a day Windows browsing. Then I go home and maybe in a good day I use Linux for another 3-4 hours to browse the Internet. Maybe 30% of the people are forced to do Windows browsing at work?

[deanjo]

If I look at myself, all desktops in the company are Windows, that's 8 hours a day Windows browsing. Then I go home and maybe in a good day I use Linux for another 3-4 hours to browse the Internet. Maybe 30% of the people are forced to do Windows browsing at work?

Same could be said vice versa, perhaps a good percentage of those people that are forced to use linux at work go home and use windows at home where they can game, do multimedia stuff, or other tasks that a user may do on their time but is not a activity that they would do at work and linux not having a strong suite of apps to handle those tasks.

[next9]

...I have to admit I don't fully understand the criticism of Ubuntu here....

I think we can discuss it on multiple levels:

1) Feedback - Ubuntu is one of the system, that is derived from another system.... etc. so they patch software against Debian, instead of upstream. These patches often don't go anywhere, according to the upstream developers. With large market-share of Ubuntu, it is some kind of parasitism comparing to those, who communicate with upstream.

2) Development - I heard many times, that if you are so lucky and meet some Canonical stuff, it is usually usable only for Canonical. For example they developed "command-not-found" utility. This program was adopted by other distributions. The developers of my favourite distributions revealed in some mailing list, that "command-not-found" was written so ugly, that they rather rewrote it from scratch instead of using ubuntu original. Or, if some Canonical stuff is considered to be quality, it is proprietary.

3) Developers - The main objection against Greg Kroah Hartman from Canonical side was, that they are much smaller company with smaller resources, they use vanilla software etc... Now how can I understand Canonical announcement about granting Canonical developers to google? Canonical is so small, that it can't fund even one kernel/glibc/xorg... developer, but large enough to pay developers to work for Google? It unbelievable!

[deanjo]

I think we can discuss it on multiple levels:

1) Feedback - Ubuntu is one of the system, that is derived from another system.... etc. so they patch software against Debian, instead of upstream. These patches often don't go anywhere, according to the upstream developers. With large market-share of Ubuntu, it is some kind of parasitism comparing to those, who communicate with upstream.

2) Development - I heard many times, that if you are so lucky and meet some Canonical stuff, it is usually usable only for Canonical. For example they developed "command-not-found" utility. This program was adopted by other distributions. The developers of my favourite distributions revealed in some mailing list, that "command-not-found" was written so ugly, that they rather rewrote it from scratch instead of using ubuntu original. Or, if some Canonical stuff is considered to be quality, it is proprietary.

3) Developers - The main objection against Greg Kroah Hartman from Canonical side was, that they are much smaller company with smaller resources, they use vanilla software etc... Now how can I understand Canonical announcement about granting Canonical developers to google? Canonical is so small, that it can't fund even one kernel/glibc/xorg... developer, but large enough to pay developers to work for Google? It unbelievable!

4) The scary amount of large projects that are saying "If it builds on ubuntu, then that's all we care about and users of other distro's can go fsck themselves."