Ubuntu Set To Terminate Its Brainstorm Project

[moilami]

Well, I took it as aggressive in the first place. I apologize.

No probs and thanks. In my opinion we all are in the same boat, maybe just using different oars, but that should not be a biggie.

[mrugiero]

Well it was a joke in the first place.

Well, I took it as aggressive in the first place. I apologize.

[moilami]

Using Debian doesn't give any air of superiority. What gives the air of superiority is qualifying the ones who use Ubuntu as "too dumb to use Debian", man.
Giving advice and insulting are two very different things. And yes, apologizing is enough, THANK YOU.
But the fact you say this means I misjudged you, so I apologize too.

Well it was a joke in the first place.

[mrugiero]

Clearly times has changed if using Debian GNU/Linux gives an air of superiority

So, is there anything I can do to make you "Ubuntu" users happy and content of the fact that people rather use Debian GNU/Linux than "Ubuntu"? Is it enough if I apologize that

Using Debian doesn't give any air of superiority. What gives the air of superiority is qualifying the ones who use Ubuntu as "too dumb to use Debian", man.
Giving advice and insulting are two very different things. And yes, apologizing is enough, THANK YOU.
But the fact you say this means I misjudged you, so I apologize too.

[moilami]

In 2000, I was an idiot. And I started playing with Knoopix (couldn't make a setup because I had no computers completely mine back then) and entering an infinite loop of reading the first few chapters of an assembly language course and leaving it waiting til I forget what a register was. I was 9, though, so I can't care less of how ignorant or stupid I was back then. I had the same air of superiority you have right now, with even less merits.

Clearly times has changed if using Debian GNU/Linux gives an air of superiority

So, is there anything I can do to make you "Ubuntu" users happy and content of the fact that people rather use Debian GNU/Linux than "Ubuntu"? Is it enough if I apologize that

[mrugiero]

I used Gentoo when Arch was not even born. May I ask where you were in the beginning of 2000

Gentoo was great for learning but not so great when emerge world broke something you had no time to fix. So, back to Debian GNU/Linux.

When Ubuntu came I saw no need to use it. It took several versions of Ubuntu before I tried it first time. At times Ubuntu almost got behind Debian GNU/Linux. I wondered if Ubuntu would eventually reach Debian GNU/Linux. But no, doesn't seem to happen for it has fell far behind again. Software Shit (center) is a freaking fail, and if you want to do something else than browse web you will always find things broken in Ubuntu.

Today Ubuntu is like a test bed of how shit derivate you can make.

In 2000, I was an idiot. And I started playing with Knoopix (couldn't make a setup because I had no computers completely mine back then) and entering an infinite loop of reading the first few chapters of an assembly language course and leaving it waiting til I forget what a register was. I was 9, though, so I can't care less of how ignorant or stupid I was back then. I had the same air of superiority you have right now, with even less merits.
I don't like software center either; I do use a GUI for apt, though, because it's handy. I use Synaptic. The only thing I keep forgetting how to do with the CLI tools is to see the description of a package, mostly because when I use the CLI I'm usually already sure which package I need to touch, so reading descriptions becomes pointless.
I do more things than surfing the web, one of them is cross-compiling for Windows, and I found nothing broken on that side. Up until mid 2012 most of my desktop was built from the git repos (LXDE in one box, XFCE in the others), one of my boxes used a custom kernel, built from jsimmons repo. As a natural consequence, I built the X.org driver too. I did, and still do, find things broken in Ubuntu in general from time to time (upgrading is still pretty much broken most of the time). I did find broken things in Arch and Debian, too, while trying to install them on a friend's computer. Debian simply hanged up, I guess in a panic since ctrl+alt+del didn't help, Arch I do not remember what failed at first, and when that got solved, hardware started failing randomly.
I grant you Debian is pretty much as easy to use as Ubuntu (and its wiki is lovely organized, I use it almost every time I want to toy with the configs) once installed. The main reason I recommend Ubuntu is because some specific packages are easier to get from PPAs for Ubuntu than for Debian and because the installation process is (or was, it was a few years ago I tried to install Debian on my friend's computer, so it might have changed) easier for the beginner. I don't like Unity, but most people I recommended Ubuntu to like it for some reason. I like XFCE the better, and I'd expect it to be easier to adapt to if you come from Windows than Unity.
I'm not talking because I don't know how to use GNU/Linux, I'm talking because I know how to respect people who just needs shit done.

Really? What you actually are saying here is: Don't blame Canonical for releasing broken software, other distros have broken software, too!
So what, I blame any organization that releases broken software, when the release is caused by a broken release model, like Ubuntu's "We release on that specific day, no matter in which state the software is" approach.

That's a good point.

[Vim_User]

Also you cand find broken things with other distros also.

Really? What you actually are saying here is: Don't blame Canonical for releasing broken software, other distros have broken software, too!
So what, I blame any organization that releases broken software, when the release is caused by a broken release model, like Ubuntu's "We release on that specific day, no matter in which state the software is" approach.

[moilami]

Software center works. I know you are in love with CLI but most people can't be bothered to fire up the terminal. Also you cand find broken things with other distros also. Also gentoo is shit for a sane user that just wants something that just works. Stop with the air of superiority. Nobody in their fucking right mind would recommend either gentoo or arch when selling linux to other people

Depends on to whom. If someone would want to learn something else of the system than howto click stuff, then I would definetly recommend Gentoo, maybe. It used to have very good documentation and a lot of stuff to study, configure, and adjust. But if one would not want to learn, then I would just install Debian GNU/Linux (with default desktop) and say have fun clicking stuff

And yeah, everything have stuff broken, even Debian. I have two accounts configured in Empathy in Wheezy, Jabber and gtalk, and when I try to disable gtalk from accounts the window just crashes

But at least it used to be very hard to find broken stuff in Debian.

[moilami]

Moilami is an ancient African word meaning "I am to dumb to admit I need to use a harder OS to feel smarter than you and to respect other people's opinions".

Also, if you really want to show how smart you are, you could use something like Arch or Gentoo...



A sad truth.

I used Gentoo when Arch was not even born. May I ask where you were in the beginning of 2000

Gentoo was great for learning but not so great when emerge world broke something you had no time to fix. So, back to Debian GNU/Linux.

When Ubuntu came I saw no need to use it. It took several versions of Ubuntu before I tried it first time. At times Ubuntu almost got behind Debian GNU/Linux. I wondered if Ubuntu would eventually reach Debian GNU/Linux. But no, doesn't seem to happen for it has fell far behind again. Software Shit (center) is a freaking fail, and if you want to do something else than browse web you will always find things broken in Ubuntu.

Today Ubuntu is like a test bed of how shit derivate you can make.

[mrugiero]

This is not about your own personal tastes , you can make your own distro if you want. This is about how ubuntu stands right now, and right now is the best distro

The thing pointed out by Serafean is that it doesn't just affect at the distro level, but at the packages level. An extra platform to support means less time to actually maintain the software. It doesn't matter if you use Linux from scratch, Debian, Ubuntu or even some FreeBSD; if the specific software you want to use is supposed to support Mir, X, Wayland, FreeBSD, Linux, the eye of Sauron, then it means the LIMITED NUMBER OF DEVS will have less time for YOUR particular setup. And they usually give priority based on how many users the setup have (which I don't disagree, but I disagree in arbitrarily increasing the number of different setups just because), meaning that as you go far from Ubuntu or Red Hat, your platform gets less support. Mir, in case it succeeds, will affect almost every open source graphical app in that way.

And "the best distro" thing, it doesn't exist one "best distro". The distro depends on the user. It's MAYBE the best general use, general user distro, but there are areas where it's not. At the customizing level, for instance, is actually one of the worst ones. Of course, customizing is mostly for embeded and hobbyists that like to toy with the system. Regular users will probably tweak the looks, install the software they need, and that's it. And it's alright. That doesn't mean they're dumb, like some stupid zealots (intolerance is stupid IMO, is not about how much do you know about computers), that means the distro suits you, and that's it.

Ubuntu is the best Linux distro out there and by far. I found it funny the sado masochism syndrome of some linux geek users just to please their own ego.

Let's put it this way. Have you ever played with Legos? Do you feel like it's masochist to play with Legos? Well, for hobbyists and geeks, using harder distros like Arch or Gentoo is just like playing with Legos. And for some specific uses, software must be tweaked a lot, so it makes sense to tweak it since the beginning and avoid having to guess what Ubuntu devs did and why. For general, out of the box usage, you can use your regular distro, being Ubuntu, Red Hat and Fedora the most succesful ones. For embeded and servers it might make sense to go with something a little more customized, like the OS skeleton Arch and Gentoo provide out of the box.

Just look at steam for linux. Using ubuntu specific APIs. That's how it begins.

The fact is, Ubuntu is opensource. You can still build what you need without few or none reverse engineering. Also, AFAIK Wayland uses Linux specific APIs. They can be ported to BSD and others, yes, but then you come to the conclusion it's the same as it's in Ubuntu.
There is also the fact Ubuntu is the most used distro on the desktop, and Steam will ship to platforms that represent a market share, because supporting a platform costs money. Using platform specific APIs is usually a way to keep things optimized for that platform, thus, giving a better performance for that market share.

To quote someone in Google+ "Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning I am too dumb to use Debian GNU/Linux"

Moilami is an ancient African word meaning "I am to dumb to admit I need to use a harder OS to feel smarter than you and to respect other people's opinions".

Also, if you really want to show how smart you are, you could use something like Arch or Gentoo...

Put down the meth pipe man. The distro situation is what held Linux back for all those years, it's the problem of too much choice. 99% of the distros out there could close shop tomorrow and their tiny handful of users could move to the big distros, which would give Linux a much larger tangible surface area for companies to look at and see a reason to support it instead of looking at the convoluted mess that is a million and one distros all trying to do the same thing, but all doing it badly.

A sad truth.